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.
I wasn't searching for causality. I was showing you that there are homogeneous nations that are doing quite badly. I was proving the opposite to what the OP wanted to prove. If a country works best when it's homogeneous, then why are Paraguay, Albania, Haiti, and North Korea doing so badly?
And I said nothing about diversity either. The problem is I came up with some examples to prove you wrong, and you can't handle it.
You're still not comprehending. Look up "orthogonal" it means there is no correlation between these factors. That's what I've been saying all along. Re-read! I claim homogeneity or lack thereof is not a national success factor. I gave out examples of successful homogoneous cultures to rebut a poster who definitively said 95% of homogenous cultures were in poor shape. That was an absurd statement and I gave counter examples.
My original statement had nothing to do with making a proof. All I said was that I LIKE distinct national identities and ethnicities and a bunch of you people wig the F out.
This is a conservative argument without merit because it's based on a false premise: that you can keep humans neatly segregated in separate geographic spaces in a world that has grown increasingly small as technology grows at an exponential clip.
This is akin to trying to roll the clock back on humanity; it just doesn't work. You can make some smarter policies to control societal integration better, but you can't build a wall around your nations and live as if it was 1582.
And even then, people found plenty of ways to divide themselves, and hence plenty of reasons to kill each other.
The main reasons to kill was never religion or ethnicity though, but great power struggles between states.
Of course I realize it's to late to do anything about it now, and of course diversity is promoted as the best thing since Jesus Christ, but honestly, if all countries were homogeneous wouldn't the end result being a more peaceful world? Like it or not, humans are inherently tribalist, it is in our DNA and always has been and always will be. The more differences there are between people the more conflict. If you look at the world, no matter where it may be, the more races/religions/languages/cultures there are ends up disproportionately relating to just how peaceful/united people are.
You look at something like Japan where, it's about as homogeneous as can be. Can you not say it being one of the most crime-free, healthiest, and overall most successful countries has nothing to do with it? Look at Europe, the more diverse it has become the worse it has gotten. As far as the U.S is concerned, I know people will respond with "But the U.S has always been a nation of immigrants", true, but of the European kind. Which, while technically diverse, is far different than those otherwise. When the founding fathers created this nation do you think they honestly thought by immigrants it would be hundreds of thousands/millions from Africa, Middle East, Asia etc.? And for those that would say they love diversity, well, if you really feel like you need it, isn't that what planes and boats are for? Instead of importing different people into your country wouldn't it make more sense to go to others yourself?
Sure I'll get lots of flack for this but if we look deep-down on our nature as humans isn't it the truth?
No.
Tribalistic or not, humans make distinctions. If the distinction isn't based on the color of skin, the distinction would be based on something else. Eye color, hair color, religion, wealth, anything that makes someone other than self. The Inquisition wasn't about race.
Moreover, maintaining homogeneous populations while also encouraging trade with other countries would present challenges. Economic relationships turn to personal relationships, and vice versa.
This is a conservative argument without merit because it's based on a false premise: that you can keep humans neatly segregated in separate geographic spaces in a world that has grown increasingly small as technology grows at an exponential clip.
This is akin to trying to roll the clock back on humanity; it just doesn't work. You can make some smarter policies to control societal integration better, but you can't build a wall around your nations and live as if it was 1582.
And even then, people found plenty of ways to divide themselves, and hence plenty of reasons to kill each other. Even back then, societies were not as homogeneous as you think.
I think I mostly agree here, especially on the technology part. I actually just listened to Joe Rogan's podcast yesterday where they were talking about how technology could make borders obsolete, and possibly government altogether...at least the way we think of it today.
Of course I realize it's to late to do anything about it now, and of course diversity is promoted as the best thing since Jesus Christ, but honestly, if all countries were homogeneous wouldn't the end result being a more peaceful world? Like it or not, humans are inherently tribalist, it is in our DNA and always has been and always will be. The more differences there are between people the more conflict. If you look at the world, no matter where it may be, the more races/religions/languages/cultures there are ends up disproportionately relating to just how peaceful/united people are.
You look at something like Japan where, it's about as homogeneous as can be. Can you not say it being one of the most crime-free, healthiest, and overall most successful countries has nothing to do with it? Look at Europe, the more diverse it has become the worse it has gotten. As far as the U.S is concerned, I know people will respond with "But the U.S has always been a nation of immigrants", true, but of the European kind. Which, while technically diverse, is far different than those otherwise. When the founding fathers created this nation do you think they honestly thought by immigrants it would be hundreds of thousands/millions from Africa, Middle East, Asia etc.? And for those that would say they love diversity, well, if you really feel like you need it, isn't that what planes and boats are for? Instead of importing different people into your country wouldn't it make more sense to go to others yourself?
Sure I'll get lots of flack for this but if we look deep-down on our nature as humans isn't it the truth?
Yah, Japan looks homogenous. But it isn't totally - there are the Ainu, the burakumin, Koreans & likely Chinese who grew up in Japan & speak & write Japanese, but are not considered Japanese by Japan itself (these latter two are prisoners & descendants from the various wars Imperial Japan waged nearby). Yes, Japan was fairly successful, up until WWII & the firebombing & nuclear bomb drops.
Yep, what is now the US has always been a nation of immigrants, including the Native Peoples who were already here. & the Spanish & later Mexican & French & Dutch, & - the last major nationality as a group - the UK.
founding fathers - Yes, Pres. Jefferson wondered whether an Islamic could become president of the US. & he decided that yes, an Islamic or Jew or Catholic could conceivably become president. Jefferson saw farther than most, of course. & I doubt that we have millions of immigrants from Africa - unless you want to count all humans as African, ultimately. I suppose you could legitimately count us that way - but that's not what's normally meant. When it comes to Africa, the term you're looking for is slaves - that's how most of the African population got to the New World, as far as I know. & it certainly wasn't voluntary on their part.
Yah, the Native Peoples walked in or took boats. & if humanity arose in Africa, then we have that genetic & cultural lineage too, @ some remove (plus we enslaved Islamics & bits of their culture when the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was active - so we have some direct transfer there).
Yah, the Native Peoples walked in or took boats. & if humanity arose in Africa, then we have that genetic & cultural lineage too, @ some remove (plus we enslaved Islamics & bits of their culture when the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was active - so we have some direct transfer there).
As far as I know, most of the islamic involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was islamic tribal leaders capturing infidels to sell to European infidels. The islamic slave trade in Africa was bigger than the trans-Atlantic slave trade and preceded it by centuries.
Its interesting to note the unspoken rule of thumb regarding mostly racially homogenous other places in tbe world. Asia? Well thats mainly for Asians. Sub Saharan Africa? Land of the blacks. Indian sub continent? Indians. And so forth. But Europe and the US/Canada is for whites? Oh no!!! Those places are for EVERYONE!!
Based on your reasoning the US and Canada should be for the people actually native to those lands, rather than those who IMMIGRATED there and their descendants. I suppose you have begun packing to leave the country than correct?
Based on your reasoning the US and Canada should be for the people actually native to those lands, rather than those who IMMIGRATED there and their descendants. I suppose you have begun packing to leave the country than correct?
That's a ridiculous argument people use. They aren't any more "native" to North America than anyone else, they came from Asia over the bering strait.
Of course I realize it's to late to do anything about it now, and of course diversity is promoted as the best thing since Jesus Christ, but honestly, if all countries were homogeneous wouldn't the end result being a more peaceful world? Like it or not, humans are inherently tribalist, it is in our DNA and always has been and always will be. The more differences there are between people the more conflict. If you look at the world, no matter where it may be, the more races/religions/languages/cultures there are ends up disproportionately relating to just how peaceful/united people are.
Consider it an opportunity for personal and societal growth. This is an opportunity for humanity to learn greater compassion, acceptance of difference, and an expanded vision of tolerance for those not like ourselves. Practically speaking, there's no alternative, since, as you note, diversity is here to stay. Instead of fighting it, we can learn to work with it, possibly even turn it into a strength.
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.
They make a desert
