Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes I wonder, I think about the root stuff going on with modern racism. My own experiences with it, living in mostly white places where virtue signaling is the order of the day, to living in DC suburbs and lower class areas of Cincinnati (mostly white, and later mostly black ones.)
I really think that people have a much easier time being chill and accepting of differences, when those people are prosperous. When it feels like there are plenty of resources to go around, you live in a nice neighborhood, and a neighbor moves in who has a different ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation...so long as no one is being a bother to anyone else it just isn't hard to get along. I think that the further you go into poverty, though...the worse it gets, the antagonism toward anyone who is "other." Maybe it's a mindset that flourishes when resources seem scarce. I do know that scarcity causes big changes in human psychology. But I don't feel like the very poor people of any race, as I have seen them in their own communities, are any better truly than any other. I've got family in nasty trailer parks where the children are filthy and unsupervised and the adults are screaming drunk or on meth. I had a cousin whose felon boyfriend stabbed her in the neck and killed her. White people. Low income and low class ones. Can't even really trace a particular European heritage, but probably mostly British, our family has been on this continent a long time, but they've been poor for most of it, except some occasionally prosperous individuals...enough to thrive perhaps for a time, but not enough to change the fortunes of the family in general.
And they are very racist, very hostile to outsiders, prejudiced against gays and Jews and all sorts of "you're not from around here" folk. I don't have much to do with them, not for a long time.
I lived on the edge of a Cincinnati neighborhood called Over The Rhine for a while. It took a while of being seen around, before the mostly black residents stopped eyeing me with hostility. I stopped and talked to people. Made some friends. Treated others with respect, but knew when to mind my business. But that was before the race riots that broke out after a young man was shot in the back by the cops.
I've lived in an area to the south of Colorado Springs that was fairly diverse, but it was a very middle class suburb with a lot of military families (which is probably the main reason for the racial diversity there.) Everyone was friendly, everyone got on fine. I never saw any evidence of racism. We were all just...nice to each other. But this was a pretty decent neighborhood with fairly large homes, and not the kind of place you find those who are really living in poverty. I doubt that many residents had a mindset of scarcity. So I don't feel like we were looking for threats from anyone who was different.
Honestly I think that's a big part of the "diversity doesn't work" mindset, and how we see a lot of racial division in neighborhoods...a lot of these segregated places are low income areas. And to say something that is very "chicken or egg"...in low income areas, no matter the racial flavor, you find more addicts, more badly behaved people, more crime, folks who don't have the time or energy to keep the outsides of their yards, their cars, whatever, looking nice...and frankly, when I was poor, you didn't really want it to, because the more "nice" your stuff looked, the more you were inviting someone to try and rob you. There are tremendous differences in one's way of life and surroundings, if you're poor...and if you're not. And poor people often dislike other poor people, because they pose a potential threat. Everybody trying to take what everybody else has got, because no one has much. And constant paranoia and/or anger that people not like you are getting things you aren't.
If there is a solution where people can coexist more peaceably, prosperity probably has to be a big part of that. But can we make everyone prosperous? Is it ethical to try? I know that I've encountered plenty of people who would much rather continue to go without, themselves, than see other folks they don't like get anything, even if they would also benefit. And that applies to any scarce resource that another person or institution could grant.
This is an interesting statement. Isn't the US supposed to be a democracy? Isn't it public opinion that should be guiding government policy? Shouldn't the American people have some say in who comes into our country?
Is it wise or just to have our immigration policy dictated by an elite few who personally benefit from unfettered third-world immigration while the rest of America pays the price for it? Corporations support such immigration because it offers an infinite supply of low-wage workers. The cultural impact, the higher taxes, the increase in crime, etc. are the burdens placed upon the "average American", none of whom ever voted in favor of this diversity.
More people are for a humanitarian based immigration policy than closed borders, but the people for closed borders don’t care they aren’t the majority. The majority for instance want a path to citizenship for Dreamers. Then, as now, the minority were simply the loudest and the ones who used discriminatory and even violent means to fight it.
The problem with over emphasis on diversity as I see it anyway, is the more diverse the population the more inter-marriage. The more inter marriage, the darker the children. As time goes on the entire planet will be dark. = No more diversity.
Just another solution to a problem that doesn't exist that creates an unintended result. (or is that the intention) ?
I will try to be as PC as possible. But there is no skirting around the widespread focus on diversity. Many people (including important leaders) push diversity and multiculturalism. This plainly means, by definition, that the darker that the overall populace becomes, the better. (Having a solely-white populace is not diverse; ipso facto, becoming more diverse means having other colors as well). But where is the geographic line on those colors? Clearly some parts of the world have non-white populations. Having people come here from those areas obviously increases diversity. But what about the “border areas”, say between Europe and the Middle East? If people come here from Greece, does THAT improve our diversity (or are they just more whites)? How about Serbs? Georgians? Armenians? Chechnyans? You might say that the latter add to our diversity when they come here (they tend to be somewhat dark). But what about the Chechnyans who are from areas closer to Russia, who may not be dark at all? Do they make us darker? They’re Chechnyans (who tend to be dark), but what if their family is quite light? Then what?
There are other examples.
Doesn’t this demonstrate how diversity efforts are built on a house of cards? We can’t even say who qualifies and who doesn’t.
The thread title is: Diversity Is Silly For This One Basic Reason.
I saw lots of questions, but I couldn't find that "One Basic Reason" that makes diversity silly, in the OP so I read no further.
I think y'all have been RickRolled.
The thread title is: Diversity Is Silly For This One Basic Reason.
I saw lots of questions, but I couldn't find that "One Basic Reason" that makes diversity silly, in the OP so I read no further.
I think y'all have been RickRolled.
Re-read the post that you quoted. Diversity is silly because we can't even say who adds to diversity, and who doesn't.
God gave you a brain, so use it.
The problem with over emphasis on diversity as I see it anyway, is the more diverse the population the more inter-marriage. The more inter marriage, the darker the children. As time goes on the entire planet will be dark. = No more diversity.
Just another solution to a problem that doesn't exist that creates an unintended result. (or is that the intention) ?
I think you have no idea about how your post actually sounds.
Re-read the post that you quoted. Diversity is silly because we can't even say who adds to diversity, and who doesn't.
God gave you a brain, so use it.
Of course you can decide. Anyone not in the largest group adds diversity. The at-the-margin examples you cited are nothing more than exceptions that prove*the general rule. Very few things in life are absolute. Your complaint is that racial/ethnic distinctions are not absolute like lines on a map. That's not a "basic reason" it's a fool's errand, it takes zero account of the human condition.
The problem with over emphasis on diversity as I see it anyway, is the more diverse the population the more inter-marriage. The more inter marriage, the darker the children. As time goes on the entire planet will be dark. = No more diversity.
Just another solution to a problem that doesn't exist that creates an unintended result. (or is that the intention) ?
I see this as just more absurd absolutism. Like saying that if we accept gay people, then all of our kids will grow up thinking it's OK to be gay so our kids will all be gay and then there won't be any more babies and humanity will vanish from the face of the earth, oh noes!
Like if something happens, and folks don't condemn it, it's not ever going to mean it takes over and 100% of all people do it. Like that is part of chilling the hell out and accepting the concept of "diversity." Not everybody is the same, has to be the same, will be the same... And I cannot imagine even wanting everyone around me to all be like me, of the same color and beliefs and culture and all, that sounds very oppressive and boring. I don't even get the desire for that. I don't understand why so many people cling to the idea that difference automatically means threat. It seems not only incredibly primitive, but like a defense of a desire to dig in the heels of our species and resist evolution. I mean, do you think that the end game for humanity, assuming our planet lasts long enough to get there, is that one ideological, ethnic, or regional "tribe" of primates destroys all the others for good and gets to finally live in peace as the "winner?" Or do you think that living in perpetual conflict is the best and only way for human beings to be? I guess I watch way too much sci fi, but I prefer to envision something a bit different for our ultimate future as a species.
My white son has a black fiancee. They love one another, and are happy together. I don't feel like I ought to care about anything other than that. The idea that this happening, and being completely fine, means that there will come a time when no one ever marries or reproduces with someone of their own skin color and it will lead to some absolute result... That just seems bizarre to me. Not everything is indicative of some kind of agenda.
But if so many people just absolutely insist that the only way to calm down and not be in constant conflict is if we're all alike, then bring on the brown babies, I'm all for it I guess. I just think it would be a lot easier if people would maybe quit being jerks to each other instead. Suppose it's interesting to think about which is faster, the speed of genetic change, or the speed of ideological change, with America as the test tube for this experiment.
Trump took the White House campaigning specifically on these issues; building the wall and ending all Muslim immigration. I don't believe the majority of Americans, given the truth, would support our current immigration policy. There are plenty of safe spaces in Latin America for the thousands of Central Americans who are overwhelming our border. There are safe spaces in Africa for the Africans and for Muslims in the Middle East. They do not need to come to the US or Europe. They are coming to white countries in order to take advantage of our generous social policies. There is no humanitarian or economic reason to accept the hundreds of thousands of Indians who are coming to the US. They are allowed here on H-1B visas because they will work for a lower wage. I would urge you to think about this. These policies are benefiting corporations and politicians, they're not benefiting the American people.
I'd be happy to put it to a referendum and see exactly what the majority believes. I don't think they would agree with you.
First of all, the Trump policy is the current policy.
This nation does not operate based on referendums, and you know it.
Some of you Trumpettes don't seem to realize that the United States of America is not a "white country". Where did you find that in the Constitution or Declaration Of Independence? Where exactly?
Having said that, I think we are too generous in our past immigration policies that no Republican president or Congress ever tried to modify to tighten things up...until now. And while a tightening is needed, it ought to be done with planning, order, and intelligence. Instead it has been totally botched and is a stain on our country's reputation.
You have a small, short view of the human existence on the planet. There's no conspiracy to wipe out whites, which seems to be what you're implying.
The Kalergi plan?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
