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.
In many countries it is always said that diversity is great and that it only strengthens them. But is it really? It seems like countries that have a lot of diversity, especially speaking of racial and religious diversity have some of the biggest issues; war, poverty, divide, conflict etc. Yet look at say, Japan, for the good part when it comes to race, religion, etc it is doing very well.
Yet look at countries both past and present that were diverse and it ultimately always seems to ultimately end in ruin. The Roman Empire became diverse; destroyed from within. Austrio-Hungray was diverse; pretty much sucked at everything they did in WWI and had all kinds of issues leading to its dissolution. Then look at today where countries in the West are primarily accepting refugees and others with belief like, values, ideas etc that are far different than what the host nations are used to leading to lots of crime, and discord.
So honestly, when it comes to things such as peace, prosperity, a general sense of unity would it not ultimately be best if every country, like Japan had one race, one language, one religion, one general outlook regarding things etc etc etc?
Homogeneous nations seem to do better than those that aren't.
Homogenous nations might have less conflict and more unity; and they probably did before mass media and the internet. However, there would be less growth and fewer new ideas. Extreme examples are the remote villages of South America.
Consider these factors that influence our understanding of diversity and culture:
1) We are lambasted with sensationalism from today's media more than ever
2) Bipartisan politics attempt to force every issue to the left or right
3) And don't forget the golden rule - those with the money make the rules
4) The left seems to support diversity
5) The right seems to resist diversity
6) Religion
What do we really know about persistence of government and culture? Our human legacy is not very long - about 6,000 years of recorded history (sorry if I fudged that a bit, correct me if you know better).
To me a targeted diversity makes sense. Before agreeing to take people from other countries/cultures, we should ask ourselves, "do these people share/enhance our values?" For example, immigrants from most Asian countries have integrated into our culture just fine. Japan, for example, has a long tradition of respect for the family and legal traditions. They seem to have been a positive addition.
However, people from countries that have widespread corruption, that strongly disagree with our values, that consider criminal enterprises as mainstream do not seem to be a positive addition.
One example is Sacramento, CA in the early 2000s. There has been a strong gay community in Sacramento for a long time. In the late 90s/early 2000s, there was a large influx of Ukrainian/Eastern European immigrants. Most of these immigrants were vehemently anti-gay in their religion beliefs. Now you might think the Ukrainians were a great addition in the battle against depravity. You might think the Ukrainians ruined a good thing. I'm not going to say one side is right and the other is wrong. That's beside the point. But I do think this kind of "diversity" didn't help anyone and only created a lot of conflict.
My thought is that diversity is a natural human process but it happens gradually. I've said this before: people are like water; they eventually seek a level.
But human nature strongly resists forced diversity and that, I believe, is the cause of the turmoil. Mixing cultures is bound to cause misunderstandings, comparisons and problems. But I believe they become ten-fold when we don't allow the diversity to be as natural a process as possible.
Consider that the United States has probably one of the most diverse cultures in history. Last I looked, it's not doing so bad, despite what White Nationalists would have me believe.
Historically speaking, the United States has thrived on diversity, compromise, and change. Problems occur when one of those three attributes is discarded.
I think too much diversity is a double edged sword. I recently traveled to England and Ireland and it was interesting.
In these countries one would expect to have a proper experience of being immersed in the culture but that is no longer the case.
There has been a huge influx of Eastern Europeans to both countries.
My brother in law employs many Polish guys because they give him an honest days work unlike his fellow country men that have given him a lot of grief over the years.
In England at one particular hotel during breakfast we were treated to 2 rather surly young English women that worked there and one really sweet young woman from Bulgaria that treated us very well. The difference once again was a bad attitude from the locals.
Still back in Ireland it was odd to find ourselves at a castle somewhere in the middle of the country having tea served by a nice young man from the Philippines.
It is sad that the European countries are losing their identity but in my experience the locals don't want to work so in this case the diversity brought about by immigrants is a good thing.
In many countries it is always said that diversity is great and that it only strengthens them. But is it really? It seems like countries that have a lot of diversity, especially speaking of racial and religious diversity have some of the biggest issues; war, poverty, divide, conflict etc. Yet look at say, Japan, for the good part when it comes to race, religion, etc it is doing very well.
Yet look at countries both past and present that were diverse and it ultimately always seems to ultimately end in ruin. The Roman Empire became diverse; destroyed from within. Austrio-Hungray was diverse; pretty much sucked at everything they did in WWI and had all kinds of issues leading to its dissolution. Then look at today where countries in the West are primarily accepting refugees and others with belief like, values, ideas etc that are far different than what the host nations are used to leading to lots of crime, and discord.
So honestly, when it comes to things such as peace, prosperity, a general sense of unity would it not ultimately be best if every country, like Japan had one race, one language, one religion, one general outlook regarding things etc etc etc?
Homogeneous nations seem to do better than those that aren't.
The problem is when the diversity is asymmetric (country A lets in people from country B, but country B does not let in people from country A), and also when people allow themselves to be prejudiced against those in the out-group. But in principle, diversity itself has no necessary negative impacts, if you define "negative impact" in a way that does not irrationally consider one country's people to be inherently more important than another country's people. Of course if you bias your moral judgment by considering only what helps your own country's people, then you might conclude that diversity is a bad thing, but if every country's people think like this, it is in essence a "Prisoner's Dilemma" of the nations.
In practice, however, people ARE biased, and face barriers of opportunity that would not exist in an "ideal" world. Locally, thus, diversity can cause problems in some ways, but only because people are biased and/or unwilling to assist the disadvantaged to help them get on their feet. Not because open borders cannot work in principle.
The problem is when the diversity is asymmetric (country A lets in people from country B, but country B does not let in people from country A), and also when people allow themselves to be prejudiced against those in the out-group. But in principle, diversity itself has no necessary negative impacts, if you define "negative impact" in a way that does not irrationally consider one country's people to be inherently more important than another country's people. Of course if you bias your moral judgment by considering only what helps your own country's people, then you might conclude that diversity is a bad thing, but if every country's people think like this, it is in essence a "Prisoner's Dilemma" of the nations.
In practice, however, people ARE biased, and face barriers of opportunity that would not exist in an "ideal" world. Locally, thus, diversity can cause problems in some ways, but only because people are biased and/or unwilling to assist the disadvantaged to help them get on their feet. Not because open borders cannot work in principle.
So, in your view, the only problems caused by diversity are caused by the host country?
So, if people are coming from a culture where female genital mutilation and torturing and murdering homosexuals, the host country would have to accommodate their practices?
Diversity only works when the various groups have the same values and goals.
Diversity should occur naturally not be forced or artificially created or for political purposes.
People naturally feel at ease with similar people who have similar likes and dislikes there is nothing wrong with that.
A country needs to have a common identity, culture and vision for the future to suceed. If not, it's not a country but an empire destined to Balkanize.
So, in your view, the only problems caused by diversity are caused by the host country?
So, if people are coming from a culture where female genital mutilation and torturing and murdering homosexuals, the host country would have to accommodate their practices?
Disallowing these people from entering does not stop them from victimizing innocent children. It only means their victims are in their country rather than ours. But why does that matter? Victims are human, regardless. Disallowing them from entering does not solve the problem.
In the long run, I might argue, allowing them to enter might moderate the culture to the point where that no longer happens. But that would take up to a few generations to occur.
Last edited by ncole1; 03-29-2017 at 09:33 AM..
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.
