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.
And therein lies the rub. People like you are here for some reason(probably the robust job market) but don't really want to be here. I have a feeling the people that complain about it not being friendly here are in similar situation as you, and don't really want to be here. And they run into other people who don't want to be here. Doesn't sound fun, and I don't blame them or you for leaving. I'm in my 30s and have lived here my whole life except for college and enjoy the area. Great job market, great school system, and tons of things to do. It's a nice place to raise a family despite it's negatives. Sure, I haven't lived anywhere else besides college so some would say I don't know any better. But if it ain't broke why fix it right?
I was thinking something similar. Was wondering if/when the area's economy goes south with defense cuts (esp if Obama wins) if some folks will start clearing out. Lots of people here just for money. That goes internationally as well (immigrants).
I remember the first time that a car went to the end of a merge lane and shot over like it had the right of way. That was about 1999. Freaked me out. Now it's normal practice. This place used to be more friendly and a little Southern even in the 1990s.
I don't find people here rude or particularly unfriendly. They are smart, often outspoken and don't suffer fools. Apparently some consider that undesirable behavior but it doesn't bother me.
I still don't get how some people can really value material things over time with friends and family. That I don't get. Really. And then you have the people with this mediocre mentality racing against others to see who has the latest car, the biggest house, the most assets in the stock exchange, etc. Nauseating.
I gave up a high-prestige career (I used to appear on TV and newspapers with some regularity) with a substantial income so that I could spend more time with my family and homeschool my children. So one can tell easily on which side of the equation I fall.
HOWEVER, I don't think one should dismiss or begrudge those who sacrifice so much to build their careers and businesses. Maybe they never had the trappings of "the good life" while growing up and want some of those things now or maybe they are trying to ensure that they can provide for their children what they did not have growing up. We cannot judge what is in their minds simply by looking at their "latest car, the biggest house, the most assets..." etc. Nor can we make the judgment that somehow --just because they have those things -- they love those things more than their friends and family.
For me, criticism like this reveals more of what is in the mind of the critic than in that of the critiqued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOCCC
In a multicultural environment, people don't trust each other, so they withdraw.
Nearly a half century before Robert Putnam documented the atomization of society in Bowling Alone, Nisbet argued that the rise of the powerful modern state had eroded the sources of community—the family, the neighborhood, the church, the guild. Alienation and loneliness inevitably resulted. But as the traditional ties that bind fell away, the human impulse toward community led people to turn even more to the government itself, allowing statism—even totalitarianism—to flourish.
Note that this was first published in 1953, from that "good old" era of segregation when mass Hispanic and Asian immigration was not even a glint in the eyes of WASP dominance.
As a general remark, I am very positive about Northern Virginia. Some of the more measurable positive traits of this area are:
1. Economics: mass affluence, high employment rate, high median income all the while maintaing a healthy (low) Gini coefficient, meaning the area is quite egalitarian. We don't have the whole "Beverly Hills" vs. "South Central" thing going on here.
2. Education: highly educated populace; great deal of investment in the education of the young. A large number of high performing public schools as well as a friendly environment for homeschooling. It's really the best of both worlds that offers a lot of options for parents who value education.
3. Safety: ours is the metro area with the lowest crime rate in the country. Unlike other affluent areas that are surrounded by less safe areas, vast swathes of the whole region have very low crime rates. We don't see many gated communities here, because they are unnecessary.
4. Diversity: the area is welcoming to outsiders. We have both a great deal of ethnic diversity and very low inter-ethnic and -communal conflict. This is a well-integrated and assimilated area with few, if any, ethnic ghettoes. And our suburban and exurban areas are just as well-integrated and have high number of mixed-marriages of all types. Quite a thing for an area that was one of the last jurisdictions to lift the ban on miscegenation.
5. Community: the area is very child- and family-friendly and has a high number of community activities, including religious groups of all types with very high attendance rates. Marriage rates, fertility rates and other "pro-natalist" and "pro-family" measures do well.
6. Politics: our is a politically plural ("purple") area that is not dominated by one party. This can result in occasional squabbles and gridlock, but nonetheless provides a balanced input into the political process. As I mentioned elsewhere, one party dominance (of either type) frequently results in corruption, cronyism and incompetence.
So basically, if you are poor, uneducated, monochromatic, single and want one-party rule, you would probably dislike the area quite a bit.
Against these, I can think of only two measurable negatives:
1. High cost of living, especially real estate: an unfortunate and unavoidable product of mass affluence.
2. Aged infrastructure in parts of the area and traffic congestion: also hard-to-avoid products of sudden development.
All in all, I think the pros outweigh the cons for me, which is why I decided to settle here and raise a family.
Of course, there are certain less measurable and more personal traits such as "friendliness" and "attractiveness." I've lived in about 10 states since coming to this country, from Hawaii to Georgia and quite a few other places in-between (from rural Midwestern small town to NYC). Among them, I would rate NoVA as moderately above average in friendliness and moderately below average in natural beauty. But precisely because these are such subjective and person-dependent observations, it's really hard to draw any consensus conclusions of such characterizations. For example, people say that this area has a very high paced life, but I find it to be somewhere in the middle -- this is neither NYC nor the rural South. I don't find it such a stressful place, but of course individual experiences differ on this score.
But in many ways, this area is rather unique. I can walk around with a gun strapped openly in a highly urbanized area and practically no one notices (it would be mass panic and five SWAT teams surrounding me in most other urban areas outside this region) and, yet (or perhaps because of that), we don't have "gun violence" problems. I can go from a "hip" young and "alternative lifestyle" area to some of the largest evangelical Protestant mega-churches in minutes. You don't find this kind of "there is something for everyone" easily.
The Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet
Note that this was first published in 1953, from that "good old" era of segregation when mass Hispanic and Asian immigration was not even a glint in the eyes of WASP dominance.[/quote]
We have had global cities such as New York in this "nation of immigrants" for a very long time. Multicultural alienation in the U.S. began even before the Civil War "Gangs of New York" era. The blurb above is a bragging point that he knew what was going on before Putnam, and that he agrees.
Discussing Nisbet: "By contrast, Nisbet noted, achievement of any such national – or, increasingly, supra-national or even global “community” – is “unnatural” to us."
"The magazine is known for promoting anti-globalism, anti-intervention and anti-immigration stances within conservative politics, and is considered one of the leading paleoconservative publications.[1][2]"
The Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet
Note that this was first published in 1953, from that "good old" era of segregation when mass Hispanic and Asian immigration was not even a glint in the eyes of WASP dominance.
We have had global cities such as New York in this "nation of immigrants" for a very long time. Multicultural alienation in the U.S. began even before the Civil War "Gangs of New York" era. The blurb above is a bragging point that he knew what was going on before Putnam, and that he agrees.
Not quite. The two attribute different causation to what's causing the decline of community.
I hate to tell ya, if you removed those of Irish, Italian, German, Scandinavian, Eastern European (and later Hispanic and Asian) ancestry, there woudn't be much left in the country. By and large, with a few hiccups here and there, our assimilation has worked wonders. The problem today is not so much immigration, but entitlements. But that's a whole 'nother bag of beans.
Quote:
Discussing Nisbet: "By contrast, Nisbet noted, achievement of any such national – or, increasingly, supra-national or even global “community” – is “unnatural” to us."
To be clear, I am not a "multiculturalist." Even though I am a darkie immigrant, I believe in assimilation into the Anglo-American cultural core of this country. (Yes, this is MY country too and those old white males are MY Founding Fathers too!)
However, as that cranky paleoconservative and "white nationalist" John Derbyshire would say, there is such a thing as a little salt in the stew that improves the taste.
"The magazine is known for promoting anti-globalism, anti-intervention and anti-immigration stances within conservative politics, and is considered one of the leading paleoconservative publications.[1][2]"
Thanks for the tip on a new author to read.
You are quite welcome. Just remember that no one's got the corner on truth. There are some good things about paleoconservatism, but it doesn't have all the answers.
This isn't a continuation of the above, but I just wanted to show what Robert Putnam has to say on the topic. He's the the premier sociologist in the field and much discussed in literature. If the below has happened anywhere, it's happened in NOVA.
"Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer."
This isn't a continuation of the above, but I just wanted to show what Robert Putnam has to say on the topic. He's the the premier sociologist in the field and much discussed in literature. If the below has happened anywhere, it's happened in NOVA.
"Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer."
You neglected to include the sentence that immediately follows in Putnam's article:
Quote:
In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.
Furthermore, let us not forget that Putnam is isolating only one variable (human beings being visual, of course it makes sense that different skin tones and appearances create an immediate sense of otherness holding all other things equal). Thankfully we humans are rather holistic beings and are motivated by more than one factor.
Other factors can and do more than "make up" for the trust deficiency created by "multiculturalism" such as those listed by Putnam himself -- strong comraderie of belonging to a cohesive social institution, e.g. military and religion. This is particularly relevant to our area, because we do have quite a few people who serve in the military-intelligence communities which engenders a common purpose -- patrotism and American nationalism -- and a sense of camaraderie and because Northern Virginia has very high rates of participation in churches and other places of worship. When you go to evangelical Protestant churches and Catholic parishes around here (which also have a reputation of being conservative-traditional compared to Catholic parishes in other parts of the country), it is almost shocking just how multi-ethnic and well-integrated congregants and parishoners of various backgrounds are. As a side note, you also see some interesting and eclectic groups like Greek-Melkite Catholics and St. Thomas (yes, he went to India) Indian Catholics who are well-assimilated into the local communities.
Putnam's own views are quite complex on this score. He writes:
Quote:
A last example is historically more complicated, but ultimately more relevant to our contemporary interests. A century ago America also experienced a large, sustained wave of immigration that massively increased our ethnic diversity in traditional terms, with the arrival of millions of immigrants of different ‘races’– a term that then referred to the Italian and Polish Catholics, Russian Jews and others who were swarming into a previously White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP)-dominated society. Though I have not found any comparable survey evidence for that period, my strong suspicion is that that period also witnessed a good deal of hunkering, even within the immigrant communities. Yet fifty years later, the grandchildren of the WASPs and of the immigrants were comfortable in one another's presence.
The best quantitative evidence concerns ethnic endogamy. At the turn of the last century in-marriage was ‘castelike for new ethnics from east and southern Europe’, whereas by 1990 only ‘one-fifth [of white Americans] have spouses with identical [ethnic] backgrounds’. Conversely, the cultures of the immigrant groups permeated the broader American cultural framework, with the Americanization of St Patrick's Day, pizza and ‘Jewish’ humour. In some ways ‘they’ became like ‘us’, and in some ways our new ‘us’ incorporated ‘them’. This was no simple, inevitable, friction-less ‘straight-line’ assimilation, but over several generations the initial ethnic differences became muted and less salient so that assimilation became the master trend for these immigrant groups during the twentieth century.
Note that the rates of mixed marriages are quite high in this region of ours -- the highly educated tend to marriage outside more frequently and we do have quite a highly educated population. Even in the exurbs and outer suburbs, which used to be populated almost exclusively by whites, you now see, not only high number of later arrivals, but also many mixed couples and children. Even many "race realists" (you know, the kind of folks who think that race determines pretty much everything and are accused of being closet or not-so-closet racists) like Steven Sailer acknowledge that mixed marriages and children tend to be excellent moderating bridges and "tension buffers" between different groups. We have that in spades in this area.
Again, Putnam notes:
Quote:
Our field studies suggest that locally based programs to reach out to new immigrant communities are a powerful tool for mutual learning. Religious institutions – and in our era, as a century ago, especially the Catholic church – have a major role to play in incorporating new immigrants and then forging shared identities across ethnic boundaries. Ethnically defined social groups (such the Sons of Norway or the Knights of Columbus or Jewish immigrant aid societies) were important initial steps toward immigrant civic engagement a century ago. Bonding social capital can thus be a prelude to bridging social capital, rather than precluding it.
One last thing. We should also take into account, especially in our high-tech-oriented region that modes of social bonding is undergoing tremendous transformation right before our eyes. We may bowl alone, but we sure do seem to be meeting people, organizing and socializing online into virtual communities. Example: you are a gun nut who thinks gun rights are very important? Why, please join Virginia Citizens Defense League and receive e-newsletters, exchange banter on online forum and even have actual face-to-face meetings, picnics and "gun range" sessions together. I am not a huge fan of social media (I don't use them), but even I have to acknowledge that they seem to increase social bonding and increase sense of community so that people, in the end, aren't really spending time bowling alone.
I am not eagerly promoting Putnam's research. It's just that he seems to have done more research on the topic than anyone else. In the the E Pluribus Unum paper his study does not include the military or churches. He just talks about them. These are highly controlled institutions. (Burn in hell; face a court martial). Most of his career centers on how people have withdrawn from groups. Putnam's book Bowling Alone says that, yes, participation in groups declines with diversity. This obviously suggests that people do not like these environments. It is likely that many people have withdrawn from churches when they learn that they are diverse.
It should be added that it cuts both ways. It is not just whites that withdraw. Minority rates of withdrawal are actually much higher.
By the way, bowling leagues have increased. In his book, Putnam said that he took poetic license by using the term. Funny, because I have seen a number of his book reviewers who don't know this. Are they more successful because they tend to be white middle class enclaves?
My experience has been that people in NOVA (and Northeast DC during business hours) are much more friendly in the less diverse areas. I always saw it as a defense mechanism. When people come from a rough neighborhood, it makes sense to keep an eye on your belongings and not trust people generally. Although, I am now subordinating that opinion to Putnam.
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.
