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.
To my knowledge most blacks are loyal citizens to this country by abiding and respecting our country's laws. That's not the same thing as I was talking about. I was referring to those who put their ethnic group above their loyalty to our country and its laws.
Some parts of the United States are pretty homogenous now. West Virginia, Maine, and Vermont are well over 90% white, though all of them have unique cultures and a diverse array of people in them both now and historically; if you look at the Shakers and other sects that's what I call real diversity that is more than just skin deep.
We have to consider what I call the "diversity paradox". Ever-increasing diversity within cultures leads to an outcome where every place and culture is diverse with no differences between cultures, which is just another kind of homogeneity. If different cultures predominate over their own small discrete sections of the country in contrast to other sections and different areas have different ethnic/racial compositions then that's very diverse, yet pro-diversity people will complain about how homogenous individual places are. I much prefer the latter option myself. I'd much rather have an all-white country with a diverse array of cultures with their own unique histories and languages sprinkled in their own areas across the land producing people of very different backgrounds and ideologies than a racially diverse country where everywhere is the same and has the same history and language producing people of the same background and ideology. Not that we have to choose between the two - an all-white and culturally and linguistically diverse country is far richer culturally than a racially diverse country that's otherwise homogenous, but we can have a culturally and linguistically diverse country where various areas are unique by having one particular culture dominant that isn't all or even mostly white. Non-whites can join in too or introduce their own cultures, backgrounds, and languages adding to the pre-existing diversity of cultures and backgrounds of the white Americans, which is what we should be doing rather than condemning Maine and Vermont for being predominately white and Utah for being predominately Mormon as a lack of diversity when it is their unique characters, composition, and history that make the country diverse.
Some parts of the United States are pretty homogenous now. West Virginia, Maine, and Vermont are well over 90% white, though all of them have unique cultures and a diverse array of people in them both now and historically; if you look at the Shakers and other sects that's what I call real diversity that is more than just skin deep.
We have to consider what I call the "diversity paradox". Ever-increasing diversity within cultures leads to an outcome where every place and culture is diverse with no differences between cultures, which is just another kind of homogeneity. If different cultures predominate over their own small discrete sections of the country in contrast to other sections and different areas have different ethnic/racial compositions then that's very diverse, yet pro-diversity people will complain about how homogenous individual places are. I much prefer the latter option myself. I'd much rather have an all-white country with a diverse array of cultures with their own unique histories and languages sprinkled in their own areas across the land producing people of very different backgrounds and ideologies than a racially diverse country where everywhere is the same and has the same history and language producing people of the same background and ideology. Not that we have to choose between the two - an all-white and culturally and linguistically diverse country is far richer culturally than a racially diverse country that's otherwise homogenous, but we can have a culturally and linguistically diverse country where various areas are unique by having one particular culture dominant that isn't all or even mostly white. Non-whites can join in too or introduce their own cultures, backgrounds, and languages adding to the pre-existing diversity of cultures and backgrounds of the white Americans, which is what we should be doing rather than condemning Maine and Vermont for being predominately white and Utah for being predominately Mormon as a lack of diversity when it is their unique characters, composition, and history that make the country diverse.
I disagree. I'd rather have a mixed race population with a homogenous culture. Who cares about skin color? Cultures however do clash.
I disagree. I'd rather have a mixed race population with a homogenous culture. Who cares about skin color? Cultures however do clash.
I agree somewhat. I think skin color itself tends to also cause division. In order for race to no longer divide, the line would have to be considerably obscured through a LOT of "mixing". Of course, if you have that much mixing, within a couple generations race wouldn't even exist anymore anyway. Thus race only becomes a non-issue when race effectively is so obscured that it no longer exists in any meaningful way.
Plus, race tends to pull you in a cultural direction of the people who you perceive as being "of the same race". Basically, if you imagine that your ancestors are from Africa, you will automatically gravitate to, defend, and idealize Africa.
This is true of me, I am part Cherokee Indian though most people would just consider me "white". But the fact that I am part of Cherokee pulls me towards them in a way I can't really explain. I know most of the history of the Cherokee Nation, but I know almost nothing about any of the other Native-American tribes. And I have basically no interest in them either, "they aren't me".
Maybe I shouldn't feel that way, but I do. And I think most other people feel much the same way about their own ancestry, regardless of their current nationality.
I think the most ideal homogeneous nation would be a nation where everyone had only an attachment to that one nation/people and no one else. I'm not even sure if that is either possible, or desirable.
I agree somewhat. I think skin color itself tends to also cause division. In order for race to no longer divide, the line would have to be considerably obscured through a LOT of "mixing". Of course, if you have that much mixing, within a couple generations race wouldn't even exist anymore anyway. Thus race only becomes a non-issue when race effectively is so obscured that it no longer exists in any meaningful way.
Plus, race tends to pull you in a cultural direction of the people who you perceive as being "of the same race". Basically, if you imagine that your ancestors are from Africa, you will automatically gravitate to, defend, and idealize Africa.
This is true of me, I am part Cherokee Indian though most people would just consider me "white". But the fact that I am part of Cherokee pulls me towards them in a way I can't really explain. I know most of the history of the Cherokee Nation, but I know almost nothing about any of the other Native-American tribes. And I have basically no interest in them either, "they aren't me".
Maybe I shouldn't feel that way, but I do. And I think most other people feel much the same way about their own ancestry, regardless of their current nationality.
I think the most ideal homogeneous nation would be a nation where everyone had only an attachment to that one nation/people and no one else. I'm not even sure if that is either possible, or desirable.
I can see what you mean. I'm of Irish family and, feel a VERY strong connection to the "Celtic race". Tho; it does NOT mean a person has to be 100 percent Irish, Scottish and so on famly to be a Celt; some of us are part American Indian or even Black but maybe 25 percent or less.
I can see what you mean. I'm of Irish family and, feel a VERY strong connection to the "Celtic race". Tho; it does NOT mean a person has to be 100 percent Irish, Scottish and so on famly to be a Celt; some of us are part American Indian or even Black but maybe 25 percent or less.
Yeah, I'm mostly "British". Three of my grandparent's surnames derive from the British isles in some way(Sterling, Chitwood, and Durbin(which is actually from Normandy but they came to England around 1066)). My fourth is German(Westenhaver).
I have basically no interest in any part of Europe other than those two areas. I even messed around with Rosetta stone a bit trying to learn German(I think I already forgot basically all of it).
Regardless, I think British history is sort of easy to learn. Since we are basically already taught it. Plus, we all speak English, so that automatically sort of ties you to Britain as well. I can't really imagine if I had been Italian or Spanish or Russian. I think I would have practically resented speaking English.
With that said, I'm sometimes disappointed with the British(especially the Scottish). They are basically nomadic "freedom lovers". Who basically created the philosophy of freedom that helped to emancipate the world(Magna Carta, John Locke, Adam Smith, etc). Yet, the Scottish are ranting about "to each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", in the Scottish referendum. How is that even possible?
- socially, culturally, etc. - it was more ethnically homogeneous?
Would we face less turmoil?
No. Most of the turmoil comes from generational differences. We have the last generation that came from an America that was mostly white and Christian who are now in their late 50s up to the 70s in age, and they are having a very hard time accepting all the social changes that have happened over the past 50 years.
Most come from the baby boom, and for a long time, this generation's numbers ruled most of our social and political thoughts and behaviors. They are still a very large group, but they have recently been surpassed by the Millennials in numbers. Most of Generation X, the kids that grew up in the 80s and 90s, have joined the Millennials in their beliefs, and both generations are now of voting age. Gen X kids are now in their 30s and 40s, and the younger group are now in their 20s and 30s.
Both made their influences known beginning in 2008, and more in 2012. While the boomers still try to discount their growth and increasing influence in our society and politics, the boomers are now on the downhill slide into old age, and are steadily losing more of it's generation daily now to death, disease, and the indifference that old age brings to all who become old.
Nontheless, the boomers are still large and influential, and will remain that way for about another decade or so before the change is widespread and fully recognized. Recognition won't change the boomer's minds, though. The longer beliefs are held, whether wrong or right, the harder it is for a person to give them up.
No. Most of the turmoil comes from generational differences. We have the last generation that came from an America that was mostly white and Christian who are now in their late 50s up to the 70s in age, and they are having a very hard time accepting all the social changes that have happened over the past 50 years.
Most come from the baby boom, and for a long time, this generation's numbers ruled most of our social and political thoughts and behaviors. They are still a very large group, but they have recently been surpassed by the Millennials in numbers. Most of Generation X, the kids that grew up in the 80s and 90s, have joined the Millennials in their beliefs, and both generations are now of voting age. Gen X kids are now in their 30s and 40s, and the younger group are now in their 20s and 30s.
Both made their influences known beginning in 2008, and more in 2012. While the boomers still try to discount their growth and increasing influence in our society and politics, the boomers are now on the downhill slide into old age, and are steadily losing more of it's generation daily now to death, disease, and the indifference that old age brings to all who become old.
Nontheless, the boomers are still large and influential, and will remain that way for about another decade or so before the change is widespread and fully recognized. Recognition won't change the boomer's minds, though. The longer beliefs are held, whether wrong or right, the harder it is for a person to give them up.
I'm a baby boomer and if change were happening that was a positive to our society then I would accept that but it isn't.
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.
