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.
I don't think it matters if there is strength or weakness in diversity. The fact is diversity exists in human society. It's the reality in society and in nature, in all systems. So, one might as well recognize the reality of diversity amongst people and deal with it.
We embraced the diversity at first. When the fatal differences arose, it wasn't because of them being different, it was because of their actions towards us and the land. It was their actions, not the fact that they were different.
Revisionist history hogwash. The peaceful, welcoming, harmonious Native American is liberal revisionist history. The real history is that Native Americans stole resources from other tribes, kept each other as slaves, and warred incessantly against each other.
Quote:
To believe that diversity by it's own right will destroy a culture is a falsehood and a paranoid delusion. All humanity is based on diversity, change and cultural evolution. We evolve, we mix, we change as a species. No one culture has a lock on the direction of how humanity proceeds into the future.
To not believe that diversity by its own right will destroy a culture is a falsehood and a paranoid delusion. Diversity in age, gender, race, sexual orientation - all fine. Diversity in culture? Does not work. People of different cultures can certainly be friends and allies. People of different cultures cannot form a single society. Human beings have evolved as a social species. They must work together as a community to survive. The image of all sorts of people of different beliefs living and working together is leftist fantasy. There is not a single example of that working ever. People can only coexist within the same community if they share common bonds.
Extreme racism and bigotry [...] can lead to atrocities. That is a less a knock on diversity and more a knock on bigotry. It is the most despicable of all human traits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
You evaded the question. How did diversity work out for Native Americans?
Raymond did not evade the question, he gave a good answer. I gave a similar response to a similar statement earlier in the thread, but this idea keeps popping up, so apparently it needs emphasis:
Cultural diversity, as such, is not the cause of bloodshed. Intolerance of diversity causes bloodshed. Bigotry, cultural insensitivity, the desire to grab land, conquer and rule - all of these lead to bloodshed. A respect for diversity is about the only thing that can counteract the types of violence you are referring to. If the Europeans invading America had been guided by principles of cultural sensitivity and tolerance of diversity, do you think they would have massacred so many native populations?
"Diversity is strength" is pretty much the definition of Orwellian newthink.
Creepy stuff when you really step back and look at it.
Just curious: Have you actually read Orwell? I think you've got this just exactly backwards. Also, I think the term you meant was not "newthink" but newspeak. Here is a quote from the Wiki entry:
Assuming that there are some cases where "strength in diversity" is true, and other cases where it might not be, I'd really like to get a deep understanding of exactly why there is strength in diversity (when it's true) and why, in other cases, diversity might do more harm than good.
Are there underlying principles at work that might help us to generally predict the effects of diversity in various kinds of situations?
Is anyone measuring "success of diversity" and if so, what's the criteria for deeming it successful? If we can't agree on what the success criteria is, I'm not sure it can be convincingly measured.
If the Europeans invading America had been guided by principles of cultural sensitivity and tolerance of diversity, do you think they would have massacred so many native populations?
They were not, and neither are many of the Muslim immigrants to Europe. No, Candide, we do not live in the best of all possible worlds.
I don't think it matters if there is strength or weakness in diversity. The fact is diversity exists in human society. It's the reality in society and in nature, in all systems. So, one might as well recognize the reality of diversity amongst people and deal with it.
There is diversity in nature. But it isn't like the Lions, Hyenas, Buffalo, Alligators, Hippopotamuses, Cheetahs, Zebras, and Gazelles coexist peacefully. No, they are in perpetual conflict/competition with each other. And in many cases, they are constantly trying to kill each other. That is how diversity works in nature, diversity tries to kill each other.
To the extent that animals do "work together" in nature. In almost all cases, it is two species who are working together to kill a third species. Which is exactly what happens in human populations as well. Diversity only exists out of necessity.
For that matter, there is no "balance" in nature. At least not this perfect balance that people like to imagine.
All animals are trying to reproduce as fast as possible. The only limitation to the number of deer, is the availability of food, and the numbers killed by predators. If there isn't enough food, they are culled through starvation. If there are a lot of deer, then there is more food for predators. Who are then killed if they killed too many deer through starvation.
The total number of deer varies drastically from year to year, or from decade to decade. A good year, and the number of deer could double. Then a bad year, and half of the deer could die off to starvation, disease, and predators.
Regardless, in simplest terms "Diversity is division". Or really, "differences create division". Even something as simple as hair color can create division. Blondes are treated differently than Brunettes. This often creates "separation into social groups", or "social sorting". For that matter, look at how albinos are treated.
Diversity is not strength. The only reason we tolerate it, is because the people in charge benefit from cheap and abundant labor. More importantly, governments want taxpayers. The more taxpayers the better. Paying for a $700 billion a year military is a lot easier with 300 million taxpayers than 30 million taxpayers. I mean, look at China. Who would care about China if it didn't have 1.35 billion people?
I would like it if people were able to look at the situation more objectively, by just asking "What kinds of people would you want to live in your house with your wife and kids?". Because in essence, a country is a house, and you are inviting people from all over the world to live in your house with your wife and kids.
For that matter, "Who is your best friend?". Isn't he almost exactly like you? Why would you be friends with someone who is nothing like you?
It makes a fairly compelling argument for some sense of "British identity", by contrasting the British with people from the rest of Europe. He also talks about how the "British intelligentsia" tends to lack this sense of British identity. While the working classes, even if they aren't aware of it, are fiercely patriotic/nationalistic.
My favorite line...
"In England patriotism takes different forms in different classes, but it runs like a connecting thread through nearly all of them. Only the Europeanized intelligentsia are really immune to it. As a positive emotion it is stronger in the middle class than in the upper class – the cheap public schools, for instance, are more given to patriotic demonstrations than the expensive ones – but the number of definitely treacherous rich men, the Laval-Quisling type, is probably very small. In the working class patriotism is profound, but it is unconscious. The working man's heart does not leap when he sees a Union Jack. But the famous ‘insularity’ and ‘xenophobia’ of the English is far stronger in the working class than in the bourgeoisie. In all countries the poor are more national than the rich, but the English working class are outstanding in their abhorrence of foreign habits. Even when they are obliged to live abroad for years they refuse either to accustom themselves to foreign food or to learn foreign languages. Nearly every Englishman of working-class origin considers it effeminate to pronounce a foreign word correctly. During the war of 1914-18 the English working class were in contact with foreigners to an extent that is rarely possible. The sole result was that they brought back a hatred of all Europeans, except the Germans, whose courage they admired."
Its just a shame that the "Europeanized intelligentsia" has control over British politics instead of the working classes. I would like the working classes to "rise up". But the working classes are working class for a reason, they don't have the organizational skills necessary to make major institutional changes.
The problem is, when the working classes rise up, it is always militaristic. Because that is their only avenue for success.
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.
