Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This could be true in theory.
But practically, if you live in a pluralistic society. The melting pot of America. You have bikers and orthodox religious practitioners. You have native Americans, 1st gen, 2nd-3rd gen, and Americans so long they don’t know when they came….

There is nothing to do. There is no homogeneity. It’s creepy to think about “making” it so.

Are you just trying to say Democrats will never have a progressive society? Because that’s not true. Can you see the difference of 1900 to 2000 alone?

Op, I can’t get into your argument. It’s theoretical, impractical, and nonsensical.

It’s not “creepy.” America was a melting pot between 1930 and 1980, when immigration levels were much lower and the foreign born population was actually able to assimilate. Guess what? Union membership and social welfare policies were much stronger then too.

Wanting unfettered illegal immigration is actually a right wing, corporatist plot by people like the Koch Brothers to destabilize the American working class solidarity and labor unions. You have been tricked into thinking opposing illegal immigration is racist by nefarious right wing oligarchs. Bernie Sanders had this exact same POV 20 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something very interesting happened in Michigan town of Hamtramck and it reminded me of this old thread on here.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned

“ While Hamtramck is still viewed as a bastion of multiculturalism, the difficulties of local governance and living among neighbors with different cultural values quickly set in following the 2015 election. Some leaders and residents are now bitter political enemies engaged in a series of often vicious battles over the city’s direction, and the Pride flag controversy represents a crescendo in tension.

“There’s a sense of betrayal,” said the former Hamtramck mayor Karen Majewski, who is Polish American. “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.”

For about a century, Polish and Ukrainian Catholics dominated politics in Hamtramck, a city of 28,000 surrounded by Detroit. By 2013, largely Muslim Bangladeshi and Yemeni immigrants supplanted the white eastern Europeans, though the city remains home to significant populations of those groups, as well as African Americans, whites and Bosnian and Albanian Americans. According to the 2020 census some 30% to 38% of Hamtramck’s residents are of Yemeni descent, and 24% are of Asian descent, largely Bangladeshi.

After several years of diversity on the council, some see irony in an all-male, Muslim elected government that does not reflect the city’s makeup.”

It’s not irony, it’s the plan. There is no place on earth with a Muslim majority where minority religions live in peace. The refusal of the left to recognize that will destroy Western Europe and on a smaller scale, portions of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something very interesting happened in Michigan town of Hamtramck and it reminded me of this old thread on here.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned

“ While Hamtramck is still viewed as a bastion of multiculturalism, the difficulties of local governance and living among neighbors with different cultural values quickly set in following the 2015 election. Some leaders and residents are now bitter political enemies engaged in a series of often vicious battles over the city’s direction, and the Pride flag controversy represents a crescendo in tension.

“There’s a sense of betrayal,” said the former Hamtramck mayor Karen Majewski, who is Polish American. “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.”

For about a century, Polish and Ukrainian Catholics dominated politics in Hamtramck, a city of 28,000 surrounded by Detroit. By 2013, largely Muslim Bangladeshi and Yemeni immigrants supplanted the white eastern Europeans, though the city remains home to significant populations of those groups, as well as African Americans, whites and Bosnian and Albanian Americans. According to the 2020 census some 30% to 38% of Hamtramck’s residents are of Yemeni descent, and 24% are of Asian descent, largely Bangladeshi.

After several years of diversity on the council, some see irony in an all-male, Muslim elected government that does not reflect the city’s makeup.”

It’s not irony, it’s the plan. There is no place on earth with a Muslim majority where minority religions live in peace. The refusal of the left to recognize that will destroy Western Europe and on a smaller scale, portions of the US.

If we survived Christians, we can survive Muslims.

You just think it's OK when Christians oppress everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe you are debating this when everybody knows this.
There are no bad schools in Japan and it has nothing to do with money. There are schools with no money in rural areas and schools with plenty of money in urban areas. But all of them are good because they are all filled with Japanese children.
So many urban households will donate their taxes to a rural area. Because they don't see it as "The other" siphoning away their wealth. They see it as a helping hand for a family member having a rougher time.
An immigrant coworker from another country said that no one is depressed in her home country because "you step out of the house and you make a friend. Here everyone is guarded because everyone is so different. We (ethnicity) are all very similar in personality so we all like each other." And when you all like each other you want to help each other.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Suicide is Japan's national pastime.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could be true in theory.
But practically, if you live in a pluralistic society. The melting pot of America. You have bikers and orthodox religious practitioners. You have native Americans, 1st gen, 2nd-3rd gen, and Americans so long they don’t know when they came….

There is nothing to do. There is no homogeneity. It’s creepy to think about “making” it so.

Are you just trying to say Democrats will never have a progressive society? Because that’s not true. Can you see the difference of 1900 to 2000 alone?

Op, I can’t get into your argument. It’s theoretical, impractical, and nonsensical.

It’s not “creepy.” America was a melting pot between 1930 and 1980, when immigration levels were much lower and the foreign born population was actually able to assimilate. Guess what? Union membership and social welfare policies were much stronger then too.

Wanting unfettered illegal immigration is actually a right wing, corporatist plot by people like the Koch Brothers to destabilize the American working class solidarity and labor unions. You have been tricked into thinking opposing illegal immigration is racist by nefarious right wing oligarchs. Bernie Sanders had this exact same POV 20 years ago.

^^^ This person is claiming that USA's greatest days started when the Holocaust started, specifically before the US opposed the Holocaust, and uses the same anti-immigrant rhetoric as then.

Meanwhile, the Roosevelt social policies, that they acknowledged saved America, were Progressivism, including liberalizing immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could be true in theory.
But practically, if you live in a pluralistic society. The melting pot of America. You have bikers and orthodox religious practitioners. You have native Americans, 1st gen, 2nd-3rd gen, and Americans so long they don’t know when they came….

There is nothing to do. There is no homogeneity. It’s creepy to think about “making” it so.

Are you just trying to say Democrats will never have a progressive society? Because that’s not true. Can you see the difference of 1900 to 2000 alone?

Op, I can’t get into your argument. It’s theoretical, impractical, and nonsensical.

It’s not “creepy.” America was a melting pot between 1930 and 1980, when immigration levels were much lower and the foreign born population was actually able to assimilate. Guess what? Union membership and social welfare policies were much stronger then too.

Wanting unfettered illegal immigration is actually a right wing, corporatist plot by people like the Koch Brothers to destabilize the American working class solidarity and labor unions. You have been tricked into thinking opposing illegal immigration is racist by nefarious right wing oligarchs. Bernie Sanders had this exact same POV 20 years ago.

^^^ This person is claiming that USA's greatest days started when the Holocaust started, specifically before the US opposed the Holocaust, and uses the same anti-immigrant rhetoric as then.

Meanwhile, the Roosevelt social policies, that they acknowledged saved America, were Progressivism, including liberalizing immigration.

When was the New Deal authored genius? When was Labor Union participation at its highest levels?

What does the Holocaust have to do with the argument? Stop making straw man arguments. There have been numerous studies that show that social trust declines the more diverse a society is. We are racially diverse, but our working class would be more homogeneous if they thought of themselves as working class Americans, not [insert racial or identity group] Americans. Pausing unfettered immigration to allow this melting pot to work is what will make that happen. But the rich oligarchs don’t want that. They want more cheap labor spilling over the borders and the working class at each other’s necks fighting each other over identity politics. What rich oligarchs fear the most is a unified working class.

[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.

Not a self-described Progressive, but Progressive policies are often unpopular, and a hegemonic state, which enables an authoritarian type of government, definitely makes it easier to implement unpopular policies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe you are debating this when everybody knows this.
There are no bad schools in Japan and it has nothing to do with money. There are schools with no money in rural areas and schools with plenty of money in urban areas. But all of them are good because they are all filled with Japanese children.
So many urban households will donate their taxes to a rural area. Because they don't see it as "The other" siphoning away their wealth. They see it as a helping hand for a family member having a rougher time.
An immigrant coworker from another country said that no one is depressed in her home country because "you step out of the house and you make a friend. Here everyone is guarded because everyone is so different. We (ethnicity) are all very similar in personality so we all like each other." And when you all like each other you want to help each other.

This is so spot on. Makes me want to go back to my home country.

[Anonymous]

That must be why all clans and religious sects and other homogeneous patriarchies are so liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That must be why all clans and religious sects and other homogeneous patriarchies are so liberal.

I was going to come on here to say this but you beat me to it. Iran? Afghanistan? It takes more than a homogeneous society to create liberal policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That must be why all clans and religious sects and other homogeneous patriarchies are so liberal.

I was going to come on here to say this but you beat me to it. Iran? Afghanistan? It takes more than a homogeneous society to create liberal policies.

I wonder what it is about those Scandinavian countries that liberals always point to as role models… Can’t put my finger on it.

No one is ever pointing to diverse countries like Singapore and Brazil as examples of what we should aspire to. Can you name a diverse country with liberal policies that you would want to emulate?