Diversity is our weakness

Does ethnic diversity erode social trust? Continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity have prompted this essential question for modern societies, but few clear answers have been reached in the sprawling literature. Taking this as point of departure, this article reviews the existing literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust through a narrative review and a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies. The review clarifies the core concepts, highlights pertinent debates, and tests core claims from the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. Several results stand out from the meta-analysis. 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 studied in more local contexts. Covariate conditioning generally changes the relationship only slightly. The review concludes by discussing avenues for future research.

(emphasis mine)

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Review

 

People say that diversity is strength because they want that to be true. The same people extolled the virtues of multiculturalism which is a bit hypocritical. When they say multiculturalism they really mean monoculturalism because if you were to mix two cultures that are incompatible they would kill each other this has happened all through our history.

Take for instance white supremacy that is a culture and if you believe in multiculturalism white supremacy is just as valid as any other culture. But what do these people rail against what culture they don't like. Why do they rail against it? Because it's incompatible with the monoculture of the United States which is The melting pot.

 

Diversity of thought is a strength. As long as people are qualified who gives a crap what demographic they are! Diversity of race or gender just for fairness sake is an obvious weakness since qualifications go out the window. We have firewomen who can’t lift enough to do their jobs. We have police officers who can easily get knocked out cold and overpowered. We have people wholly unqualified getting into certain majors in college just so they can claim diversity. We have plenty of people in certain fields who are under qualified for the sake of diversity.
It goes against basically everything that breeds success. And sadly the reasons for the diversity are completely nonsensical and illogical.

There are less women in coding NOT because men are preventing them from obtaining jobs. There are less women in coding because less women want to learn to code. There are less black doctors because there are less black people qualified to become doctors, just like there are less white guys in the NBA. People choose their careers. It’s not the fault of men that women don’t want to become video editors in as great a number. And it’s not women’s fault that there are less male elementary school teachers. It’s just the choices people make.
Trying to artificially manipulate demographics to make you “feel good” about who you’re seeing and where, is a recipe for disaster on every level. And anyone who has worked for a decent period of time can see how disruptive diversity for diversity sake, actually is.

 

ethnic & racial diversity is totally fine as long as most people have a common sense of national purpose and identify with the nations values.

 

Yes but that isn't what happens in practice. Ethnic diversity has always brought more problems than solutions everywhere in the world. Fighting ethnic bias is a noble cause but avoiding ethnic diversity in the first place is far more effective.

 

And we had an Islamic terrorists as an army officer at Ft. Hood, with tragic results.

Diversity isn't as asset, competence is.

 

Do you have an example where ethnic and racial diversity have worked out fine? In all the examples I can think of it causes strife.

 

Yes, the United States. Has it caused strife? Of course it has, we are not stamped out with a cookie cutter. Nations that strive toward ethnic "harmony" have had some real strife in the form of ethnic cleansing and societal death.

Turn three hundred million freedom and liberty loving's souls loose on a finite amount of real estate and there is going to be strife. It has been so for over 250 years. The secret? Once you hit our shores with the dream of freedom and liberty, you are an AMERICAN. You may raise hell from time to time and kick a few boards loose, but you know better than to kick the whole barn down.

 

Northern Ireland. Exact same ethnicity, different view of Christianity.

tens of thousands killed.

Germany. Exact same ethnicity, different view of Christianity. Hundred Years War. Tens of thousands killed.

Iraq. Exact same ethnicity, different view of Islam. Hundreds of thousands killed.

shall I go on?

 

what about when a place is ethnicially/racially homogenous, but different view of the same religion?

we gonna get rid of that to?

 

No, you are saying that religious diversity is a negative influence on society and I agree. Probably best to say that diversity of any kind does more harm than good in a society.

 

Limiting the gene pool has been a dubious desideratum promoted by self-styled superior races.

The genetic purity of the House of Habsburg is not a paradigm to be emulated and extended to a populace.

The dynamism of diversity energizes a society, not cultural stagnation.

 

Serbia and Croatia, of course.

But I want to hear about a success story. Give an example we can use, not some other failure.

You claim racial and ethnic diversity can work. Where has it worked?

 

It worked better when the US was 90% white. Increased diversity since that time has led to a loss of social cohesion. I mean just look at our politics now!

 

You make some correct points. It's not that much the same ethnicity in Iraq (kurds). However you have a good point, belonging to the same ethnicity doesn't guarantee peace, however racialy diverse societies are always a mess, when homogeneous one can be stable.
Beyond simply ethnic group, there is also ethnic-religious group.

I notice that the vikings/norman successfully integrated in Frankish society by marrying the locals and adopting the local religion (christianity). There is the same phenomenon for many other tribes which invaded the roman empire. Another instance of that is the generals of Alexander the great often married and adopted the local religion, good case of it is Ptolemee.

Mixed marriage and a common religion could be a solution, however both objectives are difficult to reach. Mixed marriage can be done but you can't really force people to marry other people like during the middle age.
Religion is globally dead, and new system of belief such as progressivism divide much more people than it unite them.

USA aren't a correct example of a successfull multiethnic society, it's the example of a successfull society, but the multi ethnic part was always source of conflict, and still at that day, black and white people don't like that much each other (I don't care of one or two examples of black-white friendship).

I suppose that the two conditions to a successfull society is : strict discipline and cohesion.

 

It did not work better for minorities.

 

The mass dissemination of disinformation is the problem with our politics. ​

 

I don't mind stagnation, although I prefer to refer to it as stasis.

Exactly the point. Diversity causes strife. Increased diversity increases strife.

 

Excuse me, you quoted a post I did not respond to, I replied to your 90% white post. Your bigotry is on full display here.

 

(Sorry. The replies are coming thick and fast and I got confused.)

And my bigotry is justified by the findings of the OP. Diversity is bad for a society.

 

The problem is that it energizes a society to practice bias and conflict. I'm all for a broad gene pool but the 300+ million Americans, for example, aren't the Habsburgs. As to stagnation, that isn't even worth commenting about.

 

Exactly. If the minorities hadn't come or been brought, there would be more social peace. Their presence is the source of a lot of bias and conflict. Pretty obvious.

 

so you think racial/ethnic homogenuity can't work if there are religious differences?

the society you dream of could only be accomplished via authoritarianism and Apartheid

 

i agree, all non Anglo-Saxon Protestants should leave the USA

 

"The melting pot" might have been true before the Immigration Act of 1965.

Because of uncontrolled immigration where large numbers of immigrants from one culture were allowed to immigrate to America and didn't assimilated to America's already established, culture, customs, traditions, laws and one common language, that melting pot is now boiling.

Why would they assimilate, they don't have too because they are protected by political correctness and we do every thing so they don't have to assimilate. In California all non citizen immigrants are a protected class and if you are an illegal alien you get really special protections.

Diversity leads to balkanization of society, tribalism.

Before 1965, 1/3 of all immigrants who came to America had problems assimilation or just didn't have the pioneer spirit to make it in America that they got back on the boat and returned to Europe. Today we make it so easy for immigrants that they don't have to assimilate and they never go back home.
Return Migration
Another factor in intensifying the impact of immigration is a reduced rate of emigration — that is, more of today's newcomers stay for their whole lives, rather than returning to the old country after a few years. Note that in the 1930s, emigration was higher than 100 percent, meaning that during the Great Depression more people left the country than entered.







Why did liberals lie to the American people back in 1965 ???