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.
Something I always wanted to know was the intent of people when it comes to race relations. I see all of these "most diverse cities" and "most diverse states" and all of these other feel-good images people use to feel as if their states are progressive. But let me ask all of you what is it that what you really want:
Diversity: A mixture of cultures, classes, and ethnic groups in a close location, regardless if there is any contact and affability (or conflict) between the different groups.
or
Integration: A more genuine and affable relation between different racial and ethnic groups, regardless of the amount of "diversity" (or lack thereof) that is apparent in that place.
What is it that you really want. A feel-good display of different ethnic groups sharing the same space, regardless if many of them feel they are forced to social isolation and face constant inter-racial conflict. Or a place where there might be only one black, white, Asian, Indian, or Latino person, but whom are nonetheless treated like equals and wanted members of the general population regardless of being the token individual.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,758,476 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Fairfaxian
Something I always wanted to know was the intent of people when it comes to race relations. I see all of these "most diverse cities" and "most diverse states" and all of these other feel-good images people use to feel as if their states are progressive. But let me ask all of you what is it that what you really want:
Diversity: A mixture of cultures, classes, and ethnic groups in a close location, regardless if there is any contact and affability (or conflict) between the different groups.
or
Integration: A more genuine and affable relation between different racial and ethnic groups, regardless of the amount of "diversity" (or lack thereof) that is apparent in that place.
What is it that you really want. A feel-good display of different ethnic groups sharing the same space, regardless if many of them feel they are forced to social isolation and face constant inter-racial conflict. Or a place where there might be only one black, white, Asian, Indian, or Latino person, but whom are nonetheless treated like equals and wanted members of the general population regardless of being the token individual.
I'll take intergration for 100 Alex.
I feel like i live in your definition of "diversity." Lots of different races but it is pretty segreated as far as being out socially goes. I used to live in an "integrated" area in Southern VA. I was the only black on the street (but not the only minority by a long shot) but i was treated pretty equally and embraced. I'd take that anyday over what i have now.
Integration must come before diversty in a segragated land/area. It's pretty simple. Most non-racist want a diverse society but you must still integrate before you diversify. Having one token integrates by definition but it takes many more to bring diversity.
Good question....close to my OWN thoughts in many ways, and ties in with my many 'gripes' regarding multiculturalism...
Just as Fairfaxian seems to allude, diversity without integration is an invitation to continual, ongoing strife and a very precarious 'peace', and a society only made possible by draconian laws REQUIRING all parties to 'get along', or ELSE.
Diverse cultures are just that..diverse. That means they have divergent views of what's right and wrong; acceptable and unaceptable; sensible and foolish. Unless these diverse elements can somehow find a way to see 'eye to eye'. (i.e., integrate) then they will continue to 'annoy' each other, in small ways, or large.
Your poll suffers from a few definitional misconceptions. First diversity isn't the antithesis of integration, assimilation is.
Another problem with you poll, which isn't unlike most polls such as these on CD, it is so restrictive in its definitions as to rule out any nuance or complexity, which I suspect is intentional since rare are these polls offered for any informational value but rather to illicit a certain predetermined response.
Your poll suffers from a few definitional misconceptions. First diversity isn't the antithesis of integration, assimilation is.
Another problem with you poll, which isn't unlike most polls such as these on CD, it is so restrictive in its definitions as to rule out any nuance or complexity, which I suspect is intentional since rare are these polls offered for any informational value but rather to illicit a certain predetermined response.
Trolling, for a lack of a better word.
Could have done without the poll perhaps, but I think the underlying question is an interesting one. The distinction the OP was trying to make was that diversity for its own sake is akin to a social "salad bowl", where although the existence of diverse communities may offer a semblance of harmonious inter-cultural relations (after all they are all in the same bowl right?), in-group cultural elements tend to take precedence over any unifying bond one group might have with another, thus allowing for strife and resentment between groups, i.e., balkanization.
In other words, tomatoes are still tomatoes, croutons still croutons, cheese blocks still cheese blocks, and so on, whether in the bowl or out of it. And while more ingredients may add spice and flare to an otherwise boring salad, there is no real reason for a tomato to find anything substantially in common with the cheese block he might be sitting next to.
Integration, on the other hand, hearkens to the "melting pot" ideal, where various elements combine or melt together to form a consistent overarching identity. Though I might have neighbors of varying ethnicities and backgrounds, assuredly we can say that we're all Americans.
Looking at it like this, it is easier to understand why many conservative critics of diversity "for its own sake" tend to dismiss it as destructive and even racist. Indeed, the only time in my life I truly sensed anything remotely close to a fully integrated America with a common purpose was right after 9/11.
Could have done without the poll perhaps, but I think the underlying question is an interesting one. The distinction the OP was trying to make was that diversity for its own sake is akin to a social "salad bowl", where although the existence of diverse communities may offer a semblance of harmonious inter-cultural relations (after all they are all in the same bowl right?), in-group cultural elements tend to take precedence over any unifying bond one group might have with another, thus allowing for strife and resentment between groups, i.e., balkanization.
In other words, tomatoes are still tomatoes, croutons still croutons, cheese blocks still cheese blocks, and so on, whether in the bowl or out of it. And while more ingredients may add spice and flare to an otherwise boring salad, there is no real reason for a tomato to find anything substantially in common with the cheese block he might be sitting next to.
Integration, on the other hand, hearkens to the "melting pot" ideal, where various elements combine or melt together to form a consistent overarching identity. Though I might have neighbors of varying ethnicities and backgrounds, assuredly we can say that we're all Americans.
Looking at it like this, it is easier to understand why many conservative critics of diversity "for its own sake" tend to dismiss it as destructive and even racist. Indeed, the only time in my life I truly sensed anything remotely close to a fully integrated America with a common purpose was right after 9/11.
This is exactly the point I'm trying to address. I've just been dealing with a lot of people who claim how diversity "for its own sake" is a good thing for race relations, while at the same time these people are some of the most racially cliquish & covertly prejudiced people (subconsciously or intentionally) I've ever seen. All while during the times where I've been in places where diversity isn't sold as a propaganda but a plus for those who don't care about skin color and can just relate with someone of similar interests regardless of different skin pigment (my view of integration via assimilation). I just want to know how other people feel about this and to see what many Americans really want.
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.
