Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 is 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.

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.

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.

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.

BlueFredneck wrote:From the wiki:

Australia 30% foreign born, although it's in the 25% range if you take out England, Scotland, and the USA.
Switzerland 25% (although I don't see a date here) as of 2016.
Canada 21.9% as of 2019.
Norway: 16.8% as of 2017
Sweden: 14.3% of its population is foreign born as of 2010.
USA: 14.4% of its population are immigrants as of 2015.
Denmark: 8% as of 2014.
Finland: 7.3% as of 2018.

Just wanted to correct the belief that the Nordic nations are homogenous in their immigration patterns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Homogeneous is a dog whistle? What?

Yes. It's a polite way of saying that we can't have nice things like those very white countries because we are not nearly as white.

Anonymous wrote:Homogeneous is a dog whistle? What?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 is 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.

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.

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 is 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.

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.

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

I still do not understand why mentioning research on this topic when discussing different cultures makes someone a " f**kin racist" who believes that "black people can't be trusted". Can you please explain that a bit?

You're conflating the two statements which isn't always appropriate. I've seen both sentiments expressed as reasons why Nordic countries can have nice things and we can't. Racism means that we aren't willing to give up some of our resources to benefit people of different races regardless of their personal qualities. The lazy black person trope -- which in fairness could be immigrants or anyone of color -- means that even if we're willing to share our resources, these lazy Others would just bankrupt us by taking without giving. But, very often, these two sentiments are intertwined.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is 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.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

Because humans evolved from cavemen in small groups or tribes. For hundreds of thousands of years, we have genetically evolved to prioritize the tribe over outsiders. It is literally programmed into our DNA and hard to overcome even once you are aware of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

I still do not understand why mentioning research on this topic when discussing different cultures makes someone a " f**kin racist" who believes that "black people can't be trusted". Can you please explain that a bit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is historically ignorant. Homogeneous populations have killed their own kind, oppressed their own kind, raped and murdered their own kind, divided into clans and sects and waged civil wars and revolutions against their own kind. Have you read Dickens or Hugo or Dostoevsky or anything else written about how shitty and dangerous those homogeneous societies were for most of the population? That’s why they came to America, because being poor in Europe was horrible.

It depends on how you define homogenous. The mistake, as is often make by modern woke progressives, is treating everyone of a certain race as one homogenous population.

17th century Europeans didn't define themselves as white. They defined themselves by religion and then by region. You were Catholic or Protestant. Then German or French or or English whatever. The same thinking persists in much of Africa today, where Africans define themselves by tribal loyalty, not skin color, despite everyone being black. They don't see themselves homogenous in being black.

It's easy to pick out the samples of Dickens or Dostoevsky while ignoring that these societies also perpetuated, for centuries, a dominant cultural ethos that was a synthesis of religion, culture, and class (feudal societies, for example), which provided a great deal of solidarity and identity for its people. The Islamic world still has similar approaches, they are uniform in being Muslim and that dominant shared heritage is the glue that binds their society despite any ills within in. I've spent time in various Islamic nations and it's striking how despite enormous income disparities and certainly elements of oppression, they are singularly peaceful and safe places (almost all the time doesn't rule out the periodic exception). They see a strong solidarity in being Muslim that transcends everything else (and also allows various irascible people to become leaders).

This is *not* an argument against diversity at all. But an acknowledgment that diversity does present challenges in fostering solidarity and fellowship, much more so than the woke progressives will want to admit, while homogenous societies find it easier to develop the larger community trust as we see in the Nordic nations or countries like Japan and South Korea. But I do not see it impossible. The US has always been diverse and has carried that diversity successfully by balancing the wishes and desires of smaller communities to their own identities while establishing a neutral playing field for these communities to coexist. It wasn't always perfect (Jim Crow), and at points nearly destroyed the US (civil war) but by and large it was remarkably successful in bringing tremendously diverse groups of people together into a nation. Something I trust it will continue to do so but both the alt right and the woke progressives pose their own dangers to the American liberalism that allowed this flourishing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is 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.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is historically ignorant. Homogeneous populations have killed their own kind, oppressed their own kind, raped and murdered their own kind, divided into clans and sects and waged civil wars and revolutions against their own kind. Have you read Dickens or Hugo or Dostoevsky or anything else written about how shitty and dangerous those homogeneous societies were for most of the population? That’s why they came to America, because being poor in Europe was horrible.

It depends on how you define homogenous. The mistake, as is often make by modern woke progressives, is treating everyone of a certain race as one homogenous population.

17th century Europeans didn't define themselves as white. They defined themselves by religion and then by region. You were Catholic or Protestant. Then German or French or or English whatever. The same thinking persists in much of Africa today, where Africans define themselves by tribal loyalty, not skin color, despite everyone being black. They don't see themselves homogenous in being black.

It's easy to pick out the samples of Dickens or Dostoevsky while ignoring that these societies also perpetuated, for centuries, a dominant cultural ethos that was a synthesis of religion, culture, and class (feudal societies, for example), which provided a great deal of solidarity and identity for its people. The Islamic world still has similar approaches, they are uniform in being Muslim and that dominant shared heritage is the glue that binds their society despite any ills within in. I've spent time in various Islamic nations and it's striking how despite enormous income disparities and certainly elements of oppression, they are singularly peaceful and safe places (almost all the time doesn't rule out the periodic exception). They see a strong solidarity in being Muslim that transcends everything else (and also allows various irascible people to become leaders).

This is *not* an argument against diversity at all. But an acknowledgment that diversity does present challenges in fostering solidarity and fellowship, much more so than the woke progressives will want to admit, while homogenous societies find it easier to develop the larger community trust as we see in the Nordic nations or countries like Japan and South Korea. But I do not see it impossible. The US has always been diverse and has carried that diversity successfully by balancing the wishes and desires of smaller communities to their own identities while establishing a neutral playing field for these communities to coexist. It wasn't always perfect (Jim Crow), and at points nearly destroyed the US (civil war) but by and large it was remarkably successful in bringing tremendously diverse groups of people together into a nation. Something I trust it will continue to do so but both the alt right and the woke progressives pose their own dangers to the American liberalism that allowed this flourishing.