The study of Diversity .. The Robert Putnam Study

No, I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by diversity. As near as I can tell, you only mean skin color <Rule 3>

 

EXACTLY CORRECT.. this is so true

look at detroit its 85% black.. Diversity sucks esp if white .. we have to move to get away from it

 

Thank you for sharing this. IMHO, we had a lot more real racial harmony thirty years ago than we do now. Back then the only time anybody mentioned "diversity" was in how a Chef salad was put together, and we were a lot closer as a nation. Now everybody is mad at everybody else and always yelling about everybody else is a racist. It's all just angry bull **** and out there somewhere there are some deep state insiders who want us all to hate each other. Who are they?

 

What are you talking about?

In my neighborhood, living next to each other, were families descended from:

Italy
Ireland
England
Sweden
France
Africa
Columbia
Puerto Rico

We had Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.

We lived side by side.

We would tease each other about our “ethnicities”, but we didn’t care where our grandparents or great-grandparents came from because we were just “Americans”. We didn’t give a rat’s ass about “the old country” because the old country must have sucked if our ancestors left and came here.

 

USA is the land of opportunity.

why do YOU oppose racial and ethnic diversity in the USA?

don't you believe we should judge people by the content of their character?

 

I don't oppose diversity. I believe in open borders. If you have to judge people at all that is a good way, though I would go more by people's actions as their characters aren't that easily perceived.

I asked the question before to explain why I don't think people who despise diversity will come here, not to say that people should go somewhere else. I just think that people who don't like diversity will go somewhere else as we aren't the only ones with money.

 

How about them speaking the same language?

In any case, Prof. Putnam's study show unequivocally that racial/ethnic diversity is not "fine" but leads to a weakening of social cohesion. That, of course, is obvious but it is nice to have a study that quantifies it.

Can you explain why Putnam is wrong?

 

Prof. Putnam has demonstrated that diversity is bad. Why don't you oppose it?

 

Because I don't agree with Putnam's study. He has not demonstrated anything to my satisfaction. It is nothing but a hodgepodge of ethnic and racist bs thrown together and largely misinterpreted to support an agenda

 

That is the sort of thing all science deniers say.

But you should at least be familiar with what you are denying:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663?storyId=12802663

This guy is from Harvard, for crying out loud, hardly one to employ ethnic and racist bs. How is it being misinterpreted? The results are clear. If clear results support an agenda, perhaps you should support the agenda, too.

 

Because anywhere division exists, conflict is generally a given. Conflict creates societal disorder. Disorder is seldom a good or constructive thing. It creates problems. In a modern western society these problems need to be addressed. This costs tax money, taken away from other areas that need that money. So, damned right it is always a disaster of some sort. Intelligence would never choose this route, so what does that say about the multi culturalists? the salad bowl boys? It says they are not driven by intelligence at all. And where something is driven by idiocy a lack of intelligence, the outcome is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

The Melting Pot, assimilation was created by human intelligence. An intelligence that sought order over disorder. Just look at black culture. A non assimilation of a group of people that having lost their african culture, in the 60s and 70s created a faux culture, at odds with traditional western, american culture that comes with a set of values and beliefs. And then consider those legal immigrants we have allowed to come here, which automatically group together into enclaves, which is a most natural thing, human nature even. And instead of assimilating into this culture, work to maintain their own culture, which may be at odds with western culture.

Personally I love seeing all manner of human beings in america. given we are a nation of immigrants, but only as long as they are assimilated americans, valuing our western culture, being first and foremost an american, and not of the culture from which they hail. It doesn't matter what the tone of your skin is, nor your religion, if you have one, as long as that does not get in the way of assimilating, actually assimilating into this culture. With its values, its beliefs, its love of a constitutional democratic republic.

And frankly, I cannot understand why some on the left, many in fact, are totally against this wisdom, this intelligence. It seems as if they are detached from reality, or, they have a wish to destroy western, american culture, because it was the outcome of mostly english immigrants settling and creating this nation, with western values and ideals. And yet look at what the spanish created south of our borders? Look at the perpetual mess we have seen down there which continues to this day. There is a difference between what our founders did and what their founders did. A different mentality involved, and it is easy to see that ours was and is superior. That particular ideas, principles and values do matter and they matter one helluva lot! Yet we are far from perfect, but compared to other lands in the new world, settled by different cultures from europe, this one, as well as new zealand and australia has over time evidenced which settling culture was superior. Which values, ideas and principles were superior when it comes to creating a modern nation. And it is a no brainer.

 

SO you are accusing a left of center researcher of being a racist? Is that what you must fall back to? If you don't like the research, you attack the researcher? Every time? You know, it is self evident what kind of mind you possess. And yet you have talked about the right being against science, in denial over other things science has recognized?

Truth is, research has disproven your beliefs, when it comes to social issues, and you refuse to get with the program. If you take most of the evidence from social research, you must shoot the researcher, because they contradict what you choose to believe. That this research did not come from a hard core, mentally biased conservative does not help your argument.

Common sense yielded the results of this man's research, long before he ever spent one minute researching this issue. You don't need research to conclude what should be obvious that comes from common sense and observation of what division creates. Next you will be claiming that division never creates conflict, when any sane person knows this outright. It is the nature of division. Just like it is the nature of feces to stink, and no one makes a perfume from its odor.

 

How do you account for the fact that the most diverse nation in the history of the world is the most successful. powerful and prosperous by far? Why do you so insist on denying the evidence which is in front of you and unmistakable every day? Observe nature, monocultures are weak and inbred species die. Diversity alone guarantees strength which is why many plants will even change their sex so as not to breed with their siblings

 

We are losing prosperity as we lose our middle class and create more poverty. And this multiculturalism, no assimilation, is fairly new, recent, in our history.

I see non of the evidence that you reference. But in the social sciences, it is a fact that it is under the control of what is called the left, so when you get an intellectually honest left of center saying something that defies the beliefs of those on the left, it must have relevance. And yet, instead of giving it the relevance it should deserve, you called that research derogatory names! Are you aware, self aware of what you do, continually here on this forum? I am. And I am not a conservative, nor a trump voter. I think like an old FDR kinda democrat, and refuse to buy into what the modern democrat so called modern liberal supports, and even their thinking process. I see nothing but an incoherence in much of their thinking, like this multiculturalism, a divisive ideology, from a group of people who depend upon divisive identity politics, conflict , in order to try and win elections. I think you need to look deeply into your own beliefs and party, and what they employ. The GOP and their right wingers are guilty as well, of things that I despise and do not agree with, given the nature of it, and what drives some of it.

 

Multiculturalism is just another name for assimilation, they are both the exact same thing as far as I can see. Can you be more specific as to what it is about multiculturalism that you find so harmful?

 

Wow, this is the problem! "Multiculturalism is just another name for assimilation."

No wonder you don't understand the topic.

 

Well, tell us how the two are different, and please be as Specific as you can, thank you.

 

mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism. The presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society.


as·sim·i·la·tion. The absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture.

I'm fascinated that you thought these two totally opposite words actually meant the same thing. I wonder if it's just you who is confused or is this normal for those on the left. In any case, given that you've now been educated on the difference, are there any comments in this thread you would like to restate?

 

And that's just the Spanish Speakingness of those intruders. Watch 'em lose their minds when the intruder Vibrants speak another language, AND vote Conservative.

 

Multiculturalism by definition is not assimilation.

Logically to maintain a diversity of ethnic cultures requires non assimilation into the culture that was immigrated into. Otherwise how would you maintain your native culture? And they are not just referring to food, a diet. In fact, we enjoy a broad diet in america thanks to the culture dictated foods of immigrants. I love mexican food, for instance. I have zero affinity for non assimilation into western culture, given that food does not divide people, but cultural values and beliefs do.

If you want to insure that problems will arise within a society, then by all means do what you can to divide people, by culture and all that this entails, outside of food. Where there is division, conflict will follow, at some point in time. Why would anyone willingly set a society us for conflict, by division of cultures? Of course IMO, this MC is driven by simple ignorance of the power of human nature. It is the attitude that you do not have to be culturally an american, or culturally western, with its beliefs, ideals, values. That it is fine to bring your culture here and never become a melting pot, assuming western, american values, ideals, beliefs.

And yet we should know by now that this kind of division more than not, inevitably leads to conflict as this is what division yields more often than not. It is just basic intelligence to have a melting pot and not umpteen different cultures that many times do not mesh with western ideals, beliefs, and values.

Human beings can create more than enough social conflict without it being added to and helped along. To set a nation up for disorder over order is what stupidity does, not intelligence.

When anyone wants to immigrate to america, one requirement of a sane policy is to demand that they leave their native culture in their native lands, and embrace american culture, and all that this entails. This does not mean that they must reject all of their native cultural values, but only the ones that are in incoherence to western, american culture. For they may share ideals and values with western culture. And the success of an earlier immigration out of europe was in part because of shared values with american culture.

The melting pot is what in part helped to create the america that I once knew. And the success of assimilation is self evident in america. Look at what multiculturalism has done to europe. Has it divided society? Created social problems? How can one say it has not, honestly?

Common sense and human intelligence created the idea of assimilation. It's success when practiced is self evident. The proof is in the pudding as the old saw goes. Why would one want to change what works? Well, IMO, because of rainbows and unicorn ideals that seem to never work out as the dreamers want. You may as well fight gravity, while claiming in doing so, you can fly like a bird tomorrow. And that is what these mulitculturalists are trying to do, except the future conflict they are insuring is born basic stupidity, and ignorance. We used assimilation because it is what minimized future conflict, social disorder. And in a modern civilization that will spend tax dollars in trying to solve problems, why waste limited resources, because of idiocy driving what created the problems to begin with? Pragmatism is not something the modern left indulges in. What works, has no relevance to your crowd on some of these issues.

When Amerindians took on europeans into their tribes, assimilation into the tribe was important, to the tribe

 

Well that's unlikely to happen in the US, but if it did, I imagine that wall would find itself funded quicker than Trump could say, "Build that...what? It's up already?"

 

Well, this reminds one of Newspeak, seen in Orwell's novel. It is an attempt to bring confusion into language, although I am not saying our fellow forum member is actually intentionally trying to do this. It may just be modern liberal thinking at work, that in reality falls into something termed by Orwell long ago.

Like choosing the word "gay" to denote homosexuality. A word that was once employed by me to point to a particular state of being, of consciousness, like being gay and carefree. Of course this particular word was chosen by someone who had the motive of helping to make homosexuality acceptable, by associating the life style with being gay, happy, a very positive term, once upon a time. The intent, the motive in choosing such a term seems rather obvious to me. I

And that seems to have led to the mode of operation of the modern left today. Sneaky, trying to be clever which basically is some form of deception. And they require it, in order to try to manufacture consent, to their particular views and beliefs.

And so using something like Newspeak, where freedom is slavery, is what you see coming from the modern left today, as they try to even corrupt the definition of terms. For they must have to use this, in order to get around basic common sense, which is always a hurdle to much of how they think. Again, not saying our fellow forum member is intentionally doing this, and he may just be parroting what someone else said. Without actually applying logic and reason, thinking about it deeply, as an individual mind.

But at the end of the day, confusing the two terms so they mean the same thing is just unreasonable and irrational. And IMO, this is a huge problem with the modern left of today. In many of their beliefs, I see lots of irrationality, the desertion of basic common sense, for this is what many of their beliefs are grounded in. And I have a hard time of understanding how they can do this with a straight, serious face.

And being an old FDR kinda liberal/progressive, IMO, this is what separates them from myself. For IMO, one thing that separates the modern left from the old left, is the loss of pragmatism and basic rationality, that common sense is based upon. And that is what is so disconcerting to me personally when it comes to this new breed called the modern liberal. My own education from the 50s and 60s disallows me be able to go where their minds have gone. And it is alarming to me that they have traveled intellectually to where they are today. I find it most dangerous and destructive as an ideology. Just as I do in regards to the radical right. Extremes are born of irrationality and confused thinking, IMO. And they must rely upon equating terms like MC and assimilation as not being different, but much the same! Looks like what tricksters do as a matter of habit. I don't respect such tricksters, and their motives. No one should IMO.

 

Again, what IS assimilation and what IS multiculturalism and how do the two differ specifically? Is it the language? That is a problem if you must interact but if you don't have to I don't see why it should make you throw someone out of the country. Is it the Hejab? I will agree that at my advanced years the unexpected presence of a shapeless black figure is very distressing , but it's no more than a big yamulke really, and we are supposed to be tolerant of all religions. Is it the smell of Kimchee? That used to make me sick but then I ate some and now that odor makes my mouth water. What you're doing above is simply evading my question, I think you don't know the difference between multiculturalism and assimilation and don't care either, you just don't like them furriners

 

Frankly, after reading your post I was going to give the other poster the benefit of the doubt and just assume that he honestly had no idea what either multiculturalism and assimilation meant, but after seeming his post right after yours on post #48, I think he was deliberately trying to muddle the two.

That sort of behavior is why it's become more and more difficult to engage in honest debate on this forum.

 

Putnam’s 2007 study found that people living in more diverse areas reported lower levels of trust in their neighbors. They also reported less interest in voting, volunteering, and giving to charity and greater diversity seemed to threaten a sense of community. I think rural areas are much more homogeneous compared to diverse urban areas and rural folks know everyone in their neighborhood, resulting in a strong sense of community and higher levels of trust within the community.