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.
Would slave be free with out social efforts to change mindsets about the nature of slavery? Would women have the right to vote today without the efforts of feminists in the early 1900s to change mindsets about the roles of women in society? Would "whites only" drinking fountains be matters of historical curiosity today, without the social efforts of those leading the civil rights movement? Even if you hate some or all of these changes over the past century, you have to admit that efforts to raise social consciousness and change dominant mindsets can work to transform society. Personally, I think that these efforts have been beneficial to society.
None of those examples are "diversity". Those are equality issues.
Diversity involves getting the right mix of skin colors and ethnic backgrounds.
And government mandated diversity means bypassing the qualities that count in order to achieve their perfect harmony of colors.
None of those examples are "diversity". Those are equality issues.
Diversity involves getting the right mix of skin colors and ethnic backgrounds.
And government mandated diversity means bypassing the qualities that count in order to achieve their perfect harmony of colors.
Promoting diversity in the workplace usually means promoting anyone but a white male.
Promoting diversity in the workplace usually means promoting anyone but a white male.
Yes I saw that in my career all too often. Female engineer here and I was almost the "victim" of forced diversity but held my ground. I certainly didn't want to be seen as having played "the girl card" to work my way up the career ladder. But yeah..white males have it extremely hard in today's corporate world at the low rungs of the ladder regardless of their skill level.
The renewed war on diversity. Conflicts between cultural survival and Forced Assimilation.
Assimilation is a gradual process by which a person or group belonging to one culture adopts the practices of another, thereby becoming a member of that culture.
In forced assimilation, a person or group is compelled to take on the practices of another culture, such as by adopting that culture's language and religious traditions. In unforced assimilation, a person takes on the practices of another culture but is not forcibly compelled to do so.
I cannot see the strength in forced assimilation.
The way I look at it if you have no desire to assimilate into the mainstream culture/language of a country you might want to consider moving elsewhere where your native culture thrives. Why join a society that you have no intention of participating in in the fullest extent? I don't care what culture or language one practices in the privacy of their own home though. Blend into the mainstream society and adopt it as your own.
The way I look at it if you have no desire to assimilate into the mainstream culture/language of a country you might want to consider moving elsewhere where your native culture thrives. Why join a society that you have no intention of participating in in the fullest extent? I don't care what culture or language one practices in the privacy of their own home though. Blend into the mainstream society and adopt it as your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
As I said, if one doesn't want to assimilate willingly into the society they decided to join then don't move there.
It is often said that there is strength in diversity. This is a very general statement that can be applied in a great many realms of life. What, generally speaking, are your feelings about it?
The idea most commonly comes up in political contexts concerning cultural diversity, racial diversity, religious diversity and, lately, we've seen it applied in the broadest sense of lifestyle diversity (e.g., LGBTQ, polyamory, gay marriage...). In these contexts, is "strength in diversity" generally true?
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?
Bullcrap
1. Genetic diversity is advantageous to the propagation and survival of a species.
2. CULTURAL diversity creates disunion and lack of a cohesive social and cultural survival. See Germany and Japan vs Africa.
Wake up- "Diversity" as an advantageous genetic situation has been highjacked and extrapolated to presume that cultural diversity does the same. Of course, the opposite is true, but is a falsehood that is a favorite political tactic of the left.
1. Genetic diversity is advantageous to the propagation and survival of a species.
2. CULTURAL diversity creates disunion and lack of a cohesive social and cultural survival. See Germany and Japan vs Africa.
Wake up- "Diversity" as an advantageous genetic situation has been highjacked and extrapolated to presume that cultural diversity does the same. Of course, the opposite is true, but is a falsehood that is a favorite political tactic of the left.
1. Genetic diversity is advantageous to the propagation and survival of a species.
I think this is actually greatly exaggerated. It is true that genetic diversity "can" be good, it is not true that genetic diversity "is" good.
The reason why humans are 99.9% identical, and the reason why humans are so much different genetically from all our distant ancestors, is precisely because some genes are just more advantageous than others.
There are two reasons to want genetic diversity.
1) To minimize the negative effects of disadvantageous genes(or gene combinations) by spreading them out.
2) To make sure your species doesn't go extinct in the event that there is a rapid change in your environment.
In the first case, you don't really need much diversity. A lot of species manage perfectly fine with only a few thousand members. For instance, there are only about 1,600 pandas left in the wild. And most large species are usually between 10,000 and 50,000 members.
There are about 25,000 Polar Bears in the world. There are only about ~15,000 Wolves in North America. There isn't really a need for a gene pool of 7 billion. And a gene pool that large can actually be disadvantageous. Evolution happens quickest in small gene pools with a lot of selective pressure. It is too difficult for an advantageous mutation to spread in a very large gene pool with little selective pressure.
And in the second case, humans have mastered their environment. And even if we didn't master our environment. The best way to deal with the possibility of a rapid change in our environment is not to "mix" everyone together. It would be to keep diversity separate to maintain "specialization".
Basically, there is absolutely no benefit in mixing already specialized human populations together. You don't end up with more robust offspring, you just create less specialization. Mixed-race people aren't any smarter or healthier than anyone else.
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.
