Apparently, diversity is white genocide.

[Colonial]

supersingle said:

I'm sure there are many exceptions, thankfully we are not completely rational, Spock-like beings. I'm just explaining to you the mechanisms by which people, culture and ethnicity come together. Hopefully we can have a sensible discussion without the hysteria and name calling that normally accompanies such debate.

I think that class/social standing is of far more importance than race.

[deeen]

supersingle said:

Race is about shared ancestry not skin colour.

That's the point, we ALL have shared ancestry. That's why "race" is irrelevant.

We do not all share the same beliefs, hence local migration to areas where people share similar mindsets.

"Multiculturalism" and "diversity" are just weasel words for people who do not want to spell out what they mean.

Sorry for selective quote, acceptable under PH rules after completing first bottle of wine.

[supersingle]

Vaud said:

supersingle said:

This is the reason that social capital is destroyed by multiculturalism. People living in ethnically mixed communities lose trust and feel less secure than those living in more homogeneous environments. This is the force behind white flight from our cities as well as the reason immigrants tend to live in their own groups. Of course culture plays a role but it doesn't account for everything. After all: genotype + environment = phenotype.

Out of interest, is this a UK thought or do you see this more widely? I only ask because I've seen and lived in some pretty trusting and integrated communities outside of the UK. Although they were all financially secure, their main fear was poor people trying steal their stuff. (And the community was genuinely culture blind amongst the residents).

Big wealth divides are another source of social tension!

There are a few studies which show reduced social cohesion, social capital and community trust which accompanies multiculturalism. People generally withdraw from society and have fewer friends even of their own race. Google Prof Robert Putman for a US study.

[Colonial]

supersingle said:

Big wealth divides are another source of social tension!

There are a few studies which show reduced social cohesion, social capital and community trust which accompanies multiculturalism. People generally withdraw from society and have fewer friends even of their own race. Google Prof Robert Putman for a US study.

The main flaw with Putman is that he investigates diversity, but not the socio-economic standing of those communities.

Poorer communities tend to be more diverse and have more first or second generation migrants who tend to work in low paid jobs in a new country.

Once the children of these groups become educated etc and become more successful they move into wealthier communities and there is far more integration and better social capital.

Hence, social standing/socio-economic standing has far more importance than race - if you have the luxury of spare time to engage in social cohesion (childrens sport teams, civic organisations etc) you will. If you are struggling to pay the bills, you don't tend to be as involved. Simple economics.

You'll also find that Putman has come out against those who claim his paper argues against diversity. He instead argues that the short term minor negatives are well worth it in the long run.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putna...

Edited by Colonial on Wednesday 22 January 00:01

[supersingle]

Actually Putnam has plenty to say about class and social mobility. That doesn't undermine his findings about the negative effects of multiculturalism.

[Colonial]

supersingle said:

Actually Putnam has plenty to say about class and social mobility. That doesn't undermine his findings about the negative effects of multiculturalism.

The findings that he states are short term and minor, and the overall long term effects are a positive for a country?

[supersingle]

Maybe he says that, I haven't read it.

This is lifted from Wiki:

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions," writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that

[W]e hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.

[Colonial]

I've linked to the article in which he states that some of his findings have been taken out of context.

[supersingle]

TBH I think he dropped a bk by releasing his findings He sat on the results for 5 years. Now he qualifies it by saying diversity was bad for communities but maybe if people can mix in college, when they go back to their communities they'll be more enlightened and everybody will get on better.

Well, I suppose well see, the experiment is ongoing!

[s2art]

The idea that diversity problems will sort themselves out in the long run, and will prove beneficial, just sounds like wishful thinking. I think Putnam really would like to believe that, but its not supported by much evidence.

This seems relevant;

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/fr...

[Colonial]

supersingle said:

TBH I think he dropped a bk by releasing his findings He sat on the results for 5 years. Now he qualifies it by saying diversity was bad for communities but maybe if people can mix in college, when they go back to their communities they'll be more enlightened and everybody will get on better.

Well, I suppose well see, the experiment is ongoing!

From the article
The Thernstrom brief summarizes those findings by Putnam, but doesn’t note Putnam’s multiple cautions against concluding that this means diversity is mostly bad. In the short term, he writes, there are clearly challenges, but over the long haul, he argues that diversity has a range of benefits for a society, and that the fragmentation and distrust can be overcome. It’s not an easy process, but in the end it’s “well worth the effort.”

And

Putnam’s brief contends that the 2007 paper has been “twisted” to make a case against race-conscious admissions, asserting that, on the contrary, his “extensive research and experience confirm the substantial benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, to our society.”

I think people have simply read what they want to hear in to the paper. It is pretty clear that there are some issues in diverse communities, particularly low income communities, but that as these groups become more integrated then these minor problems in the short term are well worth the effort.

He doesn't make the distinction that diverse groups going to colleges will fix it. Rather that college is just one example of his wider view of how these things work over time.

If it was purely based on race then why do members of the same race/culture in these areas have a lower level of interaction with one another? Which brings it back to a much more socio-economic bearing. You don't have money, you don't get involved in things that take time and effort that don't have tangible rewards, like community building exercises or joining a bowling league. You work hard to make ends meet and make sure your kids have a better future.

[Colonial]

s2art said:

The idea that diversity problems will sort themselves out in the long run, and will prove beneficial, just sounds like wishful thinking. I think Putnam really would like to believe that, but its not supported by much evidence.

This seems relevant;

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/fr...

It's hilarious how that goes on about spin, when the entire article is their own spin.

[Pappa Lurve]

s2art said:

Pappa Lurve said:

Am I missing something here? Seems to me like some people seem to think there are "breeds" of human!

Of course there are (or at least something approximating to the concept of 'breed').
The 'breeding' is caused by the environment in which they have evolved for many thousand years. Hence differing body plans and skin colour for people who come from very hot parts of the world compared to people who have lived in very cold parts of the world. Just an example. Only people who deny the theory of evolution can disagree.

If you want to take that view, then one must add hair and eye colour to the list as well. Not a breed by any stretch. I could be wrongh of course - perhaps you could steer us to some respected scientific source that backs this view up as I would be most interested to read it.

[Pappa Lurve]

PRTVR said:

Pappa Lurve said:

OK, that makes you them clearly.

I don't care what you do here, I don;t care what generation you are, that you may pay millions in tax a year to the UK, that for all I know you are the 83rd generation of your family to be born here, you are clearly a "them" - you said so - so kindly get out you job stealing, culture destroying Sharia wanting, non-English speaking varmit you!!!!!

Anyone thinking this post is utterly moronic is right. Anyone who thinks that and supports this whole "us" and "them" thing - well, draw your own conclusions!

Still waiting for those who seem to think there is an "us" and "them" to explain what that is and who gave them the right to decide. I suspect I may wait a while for this. I am being totally, willingly annoying about this as this question, oin different forms, has been asked many times and never, to the best of my knowledge answered for reasons that are obvious but hey, I wait in hope that someone will educate me soon as I have no idea who I am not allowed to like, if I need to send myself away and if so, where to, or if I may be honoured enough to become part of "us".

Anyone?!

I think there will always be a "us" and "them" at its core it is no different from the tribal wars in Africa.
Who gets the right to decide ? My guess is that it goes to the largest tribe.
My view is it is not always colour or religion that is the difference, it can be other things,if you look at Scotland's movement towards independence my thoughts is in part due to the strong tribal nature of the Scottish.
How do you become" us" that's a difficult one, I live in the north of England, not far from Scotland, could I become Scottish, probably not, the best I could hope for is a friendly foreigner.

OK, so what is the majority here in the UK? Do we take it from someone who can track back to the Saxons 100%? Or the Romans? Or the Vikings? Or the Franks?

My point is the whole concept of "us" and "them" is nuts - so I still await to find out if I am "us" or "them". Even if it is the majority and we could define that, are you seriously suggesting this so called majority would be able to come to a universal agreement on who qualifies> The whole concept, at this level in terms of size of population, is simply pointless. I await to be proven wrong though...!

[4v6]

Pappa Lurve said:

My point is the whole concept of "us" and "them" is nuts - so I still await to find out if I am "us" or "them".

Although we are all human beings and either men or women there is a concept of them and us, there has to be simply because of our diversity.

As a white muppet, if I was in a population that was predominantly black or asian and the police were seeking me for nicking stuff, do you really think the report would read "male in 30's wearing jeans, trainers and a white tee shirt"?
No of course not, the report would be headed "white male in 30's....." because I would not be one of us I'd be one of them... (not one of THEM).
Its our differences that mean there is a them and us, its automatic to identify different people by their looks, race and sex so I dont see why you have difficulties with it, its not nuts at all it just is what it is.
If we were all truly identical it really would be as you think "nuts" to have a them and us, itd just be "us".

After all that I dont know whether I'm one of them or one of us.....

[mattnunn]

What's going on here with the "us" and "them" thing is a human trait that much is true. In evolutionary psychology and anthropology it's attributed to survival and the closeness of the kith relationships to kin relationships and altruism as a means of helping oneself, the strength of kith relationships are very observable to those of kin in many circumstances.

Other branches of psychology, psycho analysis and sociology put a strong emphasis on individuals desire to self identify, it helps to stop the dreaded cognitive dissonance and existential angst if we can ground ourselves with a simple image of ourselves, often times it needn't be correct but it helps us to deal with what's outside if we have a strong idea of what we are inside, but unfortunately the other edge to that sword is that we find ourselves projecting our own self identity onto others and making over simplistic reasoning about others based on what we identify ourselves to be.

None of this makes any "us" and "them" behaviour either correct, moral, inevitable or universal. If you can accept someone supports another football team and still see the human underneath you should be able to ignore race, religion and sexuality aswell. Obviously we know some folk can not get past what teams colours you wear or what town you were born in, these people simply have sub standard intellects.

[s2art]

Pappa Lurve said:

s2art said:

Pappa Lurve said:

Am I missing something here? Seems to me like some people seem to think there are "breeds" of human!

Of course there are (or at least something approximating to the concept of 'breed').
The 'breeding' is caused by the environment in which they have evolved for many thousand years. Hence differing body plans and skin colour for people who come from very hot parts of the world compared to people who have lived in very cold parts of the world. Just an example. Only people who deny the theory of evolution can disagree.

If you want to take that view, then one must add hair and eye colour to the list as well. Not a breed by any stretch. I could be wrongh of course - perhaps you could steer us to some respected scientific source that backs this view up as I would be most interested to read it.

Not sure what you want here. Do you question the fact that groups of people have evolved to better suit their environment?

[4v6]

mattnunn said:

What's going on here with the "us" and "them" thing is a human trait that much is true. In evolutionary psychology and anthropology it's attributed to survival and the closeness of the kith relationships to kin relationships and altruism as a means of helping oneself, the strength of kith relationships are very observable to those of kin in many circumstances.

Other branches of psychology, psycho analysis and sociology put a strong emphasis on individuals desire to self identify, it helps to stop the dreaded cognitive dissonance and existential angst if we can ground ourselves with a simple image of ourselves, often times it needn't be correct but it helps us to deal with what's outside if we have a strong idea of what we are inside, but unfortunately the other edge to that sword is that we find ourselves projecting our own self identity onto others and making over simplistic reasoning about others based on what we identify ourselves to be.

None of this makes any "us" and "them" behaviour either correct, moral, inevitable or universal. If you can accept someone supports another football team and still see the human underneath you should be able to ignore race, religion and sexuality aswell. Obviously we know some folk can not get past what teams colours you wear or what town you were born in, these people simply have sub standard intellects.

Take people as you find them. There, wasnt that easier?

[Pappa Lurve]

4v6 said:

Pappa Lurve said:

My point is the whole concept of "us" and "them" is nuts - so I still await to find out if I am "us" or "them".

Although we are all human beings and either men or women there is a concept of them and us, there has to be simply because of our diversity.

As a white muppet, if I was in a population that was predominantly black or asian and the police were seeking me for nicking stuff, do you really think the report would read "male in 30's wearing jeans, trainers and a white tee shirt"?
No of course not, the report would be headed "white male in 30's....." because I would not be one of us I'd be one of them... (not one of THEM).
Its our differences that mean there is a them and us, its automatic to identify different people by their looks, race and sex so I dont see why you have difficulties with it, its not nuts at all it just is what it is.
If we were all truly identical it really would be as you think "nuts" to have a them and us, itd just be "us".

After all that I dont know whether I'm one of them or one of us.....

Which is exactly why speaking of us and them makes no sense. Is us those who have brown hair? Or perhaps those that are CofE, voted for a particular party? There is no universal way of defining groups at this scale beyond what passport one holds.

My point is simple - I basically loath all of the things that many would see as very English - football, cricket, any breakfast involving bacon or black pudding, I find Wimbeldon about as exciting as watching paint dry, I could not care less how "we" do in sports, I am close to tea total etc. Trivial examples of course but does that make me any less British or indeed English and if so, according to who? Does the fact I come from a minority culture, faith and histroy matter and if so, why? Who on earth has the right to define me, or anyone else, as "them". Until people wake up to the simple fact that "we" are all humans and deal with differences in a colabrative, respectful and intelligent way we are doomed to repeat the failings of history, examples of which are simply endless.

Unrelated to the above comments to some extent but I am still wondering if the chap who asked why seperation was a bad thing needs yet more proof as to why and from the rest of the "us" and "them" brigade, who gave you the right to decide?

[mattnunn]

4v6 said:

Take people as you find them. There, wasnt that easier?

easier yes, but entirely wrong, you've exactly what I describe, do not take people as YOU find them because you will undoubtly project onto them you own prejudice of reality, take them as they are, not as YOU interpret them to be through the prism of your angst self identity.