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.
America's first immigration act was explicitly for "free white men of good moral character" (1790). That means immigrants were to be accepted only from western Europe (i.e. White). I think the founders believed that a nation generally needed a common ethnic makeup so as to reduce endless in-fighting and tensions.
That is right- no way was original America (as in the original colonies leading up to the Rev) "explicitly meant to be multicultural and modern" as a previous poster asserted. Multicultural came much later.
Most likely all the founders were thinking was related to Brits who wanted to escape Britain and the strict religion of the era. However, they then created their own version of strict religious conformity and Roger Williams was forced to form Rhode Island to escape Massachusetts Bay.
I don't think a scientist would argue in favor of diversity within a species without tangible benefit. And neither would I. On your own street, do you prefer the White neighbor, the Black neighbor, or the good neighbor?
I've been in Southern New England, & Southern Rhode Island for 2 weeks now, & I'm shocked at the lack of diversity I see here. I have not been to any large cities though, with Newport being the largest city I've been to thus far.
Compared to the places I've lived, Southern Rhode Island & Connecticut are Lilly White.
Lilly [sic] white, huh? The horror!
A few years back I saw an article that crapped on Maine for its low “diversity.†Another article around that time also ranked Maine as one of the happiest states with a high quality of life. Hmm.
I’m just SHOCKED there aren’t more Guatemalans enriching the region that is primarily populated by the country’s founding Anglo-Euro stock. Hopefully they can import some folks from Alabama or Honduras and then get scolded and accused of racism when group S.A.T scores aren’t identical. Or maybe someone could write a damning piece about the worrying lack of Iraqis in the local hockey league or civic orchestra.
I don't think a scientist would argue in favor of diversity within a species without tangible benefit. And neither would I. On your own street, do you prefer the White neighbor, the Black neighbor, or the good neighbor?
I'd prefer a house proud, quiet neighbor, who enjoys gardening (or paying crazy money for a regular landscaper). One who has a drink promptly at 5 would be good too, should we need something in common. Otherwise, the more diverse the better. I could stand to learn a thing or two.
With their own lives or livelihoods at stake, "progressives" suddenly become far less enthusiastic regarding diversity simply for the sake of diversity. For a society, there exists simply no clearer path to excellence than merit.
I'd prefer a house proud, quiet neighbor, who enjoys gardening (or paying crazy money for a regular landscaper). One who has a drink promptly at 5 would be good too, should we need something in common. Otherwise, the more diverse the better. I could stand to learn a thing or two.
Precisely! You consider diversity secondary, and I couldn't agree more.
I left Rhode Island Sunday morning at 9 am just prior to the peak Henri weather conditions making landfall.
Now, in a coastal town in Mass that has the same issues with loud music playing in cars driving along a busy pedestrian strip.
Its not unique to RI. Here, they have a lot more very loud motorcycles & cars too...one just went by as I was typing the last sentence.
Anyways, the sooner cities close off these popular pedestrian streets to vehicular traffic the better...during peak times of course. That will silence the noise immediately, & crush the "hey everybody...look at me!" crowd in an instant.
That is right- no way was original America (as in the original colonies leading up to the Rev) "explicitly meant to be multicultural and modern" as a previous poster asserted. Multicultural came much later.
Most likely all the founders were thinking was related to Brits who wanted to escape Britain and the strict religion of the era. However, they then created their own version of strict religious conformity and Roger Williams was forced to form Rhode Island to escape Massachusetts Bay.
If you're talking leading up tot he revolution you're especially wrong. Remember slave codes came later after initial settlement it took about 60/70 year's for that to become a strictly racial thing. Additionally, Thanksgiving was literally the first multicultural celebration/holiday in America. 20 minutes perusing the first 2 chapter of an 11th grade AP history book can tell you this. There was a long period of necessary multi racial cooperation.
And of course it was meant to be a modern society, there's nothing to debate there.
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.
