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.
- Brazil
- Greece
- Colombia
- Iraq
- SEVERAL African nations...
Neither Brazil or Colombia is Racially Homogeneous. Greece is being flooded with illegals from Africa. Iraq is a war zone...so what else ya got? Like I said anyone considered the problem maybe an IQ problem or something else? Like someone else said Japan came together after the tsunami and nuclear problem and fixed it really fast,no rioting,murdering etc.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,370,450 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
One place to consider is Haiti.
lolol Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TattoedDad
Any places that are not 3rd world?Also ever considered that maybe the places that aren't destroyed totally has something to do with IQ or a togetherness? A sense of community etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TattoedDad
Neither Brazil or Colombia is Racially Homogeneous. Greece is being flooded with illegals from Africa. Iraq is a war zone...so what else ya got? Like I said anyone considered the problem maybe an IQ problem or something else? Like someone else said Japan came together after the tsunami and nuclear problem and fixed it really fast,no rioting,murdering etc.
You can't say that, because then you'll be labeled the bloody "R" word.
The US will end up like most empires that wind being multicultural/mixed/etc. It will collapse probably in one hell of a huge war,riots,slaughter etc. Won't be pretty but HOPEFULLY those that make a new nation will learn from the mistakes of the past. There are ways around this kind of society. Although racially homogeneous areas are shrinking and you are called a racist if you prefer living among your own race. Its certainly worth it.
- socially, culturally, etc. - it was more ethnically homogeneous?
To find the answer to this question you should read more books on the early history of colonial America when it was much more homogenous than today.
The short answer is- every nation has its own culture and its culture creates a unique set of problems no matter how homogeneous it is.
Japan may have less crime than the USA but they have many other social problems that are unheard of in the US (just watch their sick porn and you'll understand why Japanese women do not want to marry Japanese men) and if you have any experience with Japanese culture for an extended period of time you may find that it's not as ideal as you think it is.
Speaking of peaceful, homogenous, racist, supremacist Japan, is there such thing as "Asian privilege"? That's a word that should be introduced to the Liberal dictionary.
To find the answer to this question you should read more books on the early history of colonial America when it was much more homogenous than today.
The short answer is- every nation has its own culture and its culture creates a unique set of problems no matter how homogeneous it is.
Japan may have less crime than the USA but they have many other social problems that are unheard of in the US (just watch their sick porn and you'll understand why Japanese women do not want to marry Japanese men) and if you have any experience with Japanese culture for an extended period of time you may find that it's not as ideal as you think it is.
Speaking of peaceful, homogenous, racist, supremacist Japan, is there such thing as "Asian privilege"? That's a word that should be introduced to the Liberal dictionary.
Of course homogenous countries have their problems because not everyone agrees on social and political issues but the point is that sharing a common culture is important to a healthy society. When you have several different minority cultures or even one that won't assimilate to the main identifying one then conflict arises. Mind you this has nothing to do with race but "culture".
If Japan needs higher birthrates, isn't that a problem they could potentially solve on their own? Wouldn't an internal increase in birthrates be a much better option than importing a bunch of foreigners?
Of course, that isn't exactly why Japan has fallen into a long recession. There are other factors. One of them being a monetary, financial, and real-estate collapse brought on largely be government intervention in those markets. Tie a real-estate bubble bursting and an economic downturn in with a constantly reduced workforce, and you have a pretty bad situation.
Perhaps you didn't understand. My response was to the poster who wants to "prove" his unrestricted immigration propaganda by twisting and simplifying facts. The moral? Those who don't encourage massive immigration (i.e. Japan) will pay a dear price. That's nice if it wasn't just a crock or bullcrap. However, as you point out, Japan's situation is complicated and has little to do with its immigration policy.
Quote:
Regardless, people are missing the point. The issue was about "social/cultural turmoil", not about economics. Homogeneous populations tend to have less things to fight about, and tend to be more willing to work together, especially in times of crisis. There are absolutely no benefits for diversity from a social perspective. It creates nothing but problems.
That doesn't mean you could ever get rid of diversity entirely. Diversity abounds even within relatively homogeneous populations. White people aren't all the same, trust me. Neither are all protestants the same. Of course that isn't the point. The point is, protestants tend to be more similar to each other than they are to everyone else. At least on average.
If we look at the "Amish" as an example of a "true" homogeneous population. There is basically no crime and very few social issues. Though, I wouldn't even consider them homogeneous. There are multiple sects of Amish, and divisions even within those sects.
So the question as I mentioned before is, even if homogeneity would be "beneficial", is it even possible? How would you go about creating it, and pretend for the sake of argument that you are a minority who already lives in America.
1) Why those "minorities" arrive in large numbers to America when they know the atmosphere. Also with so much talk about racism, one would expect Africans and people of color to stay as far as they can.
2) Some degree of diversity is beneficial. Having people from all over the world enriched America in many ways. Tightly closed societies tend to stagnate and eventually degenerate. In the current world it is also technically impossible.
That said, the question is about proportions and balances, not principles. How much diversity is healthy for a society before it loses any shape and form? How many poor should America absorb before it becomes a copycat of the countries where the immigrants originate from.
3) Lets view another example. UK allowed massive immigration from Pakistan. Today, many of these immigrants are bitter and hate their adopted homeland. But why would they expect Britain to change and not vice-versa? Why would you immigrate to a country so many of your co-patriots hate?
The 1965 law made the immigration process fair for everyone, not just white Europeans.
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.
