Reply to The word "homogeneous"

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "The word "homogeneous""

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world [i]is[/i] homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces. [/quote]

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.[/quote]

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.[/quote]

Why is this a given? We certainly have a diversity of views in Congress. Does Congress unite us? Can it even be described as minimally functional?

We have diversity in how we view crime, how we educate children, role of government, etc. I’m not seeing the benefit of this diversity, honestly.[/quote]

Federalist 10 by James Madison.

Madison accepts that factions are inevitable. The way we mitigate the bad effects of faction is having a diversity of interests and factions so that compromise and coalitions are necessary to form a majority. The federal government is less extreme than state and local governments because there are enough factions that one faction can not oppress the others.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178

[i]The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonourable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.[/i][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics