Racial Diversity proven to ruin nations

[doitwell]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam

In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down," avoiding engagement with their local community—both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.

Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.

Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

Less likelihood of working on a community project.

Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

Fewer close friends and confidants.

Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

[TheNewTeddy]

You know what, you are right. I'm part native, so I vote that you go back to Europe and leave all your stuff to me.

[Guest Manny]

Not true, Canada did just fine with multiculturalism for decades. In our golden years there was an expectation that, although practising your own cultural was tolerated to an extent, you were expected to embrace the basic tenets of Canadian society. Those are the things we all agreed to uphold and protect. But today that's gone, replaced with laissez faire liberalism. Now out come the loud mouthed, intolerant types who want to turn this country into a mirror of their own backwards homelands. And we allow them a platform, and even the right to vote for it. What ruins nations is the attitude that anything goes.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Manny

[jacee]

Not true, Canada did just fine with multiculturalism for decades. In our golden years there was an expectation that, although practising your own cultural was tolerated to an extent, you were expected to embrace the basic tenets of Canadian society. Those are the things we all agreed to uphold and protect. But today that's gone, replaced with laissez faire liberalism. Now out come the loud mouthed, intolerant types who want to turn this country into a mirror of their own backwards homelands. And we allow them a platform, and even the right to vote for it. What ruins nations is the attitude that anything goes.

When were these 'golden decades' Manny?

It couldn't have been very long, because after WWII Canada was still intent on staying a 'white' country - non-whites not welcome. Do you mean the Trudeau era? Mulroney?

Good grief! We "even" allowed "them" to vote?

It's hard to take this seriously ...

His most famous (and controversial) work, Alone, argues that the United States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social associational, and political life ( social capital) since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences.

...

Some critics argued that Putnam was ignoring new organizations and forms of social capital; others argued that many of the included organizations were responsible for the suppression of civil rights movements and the reinforcement of anti- egalitarian social norms. Over the last decade and a half, the United States had seen an increase in bowlers but a decrease in bowling leagues.

...

Critics such as sociologist Claude Fischer argue that(a) Putnam concentrates on organizational forms of social capital, and pays much less attention to networks of interpersonal social capital; ( neglects the emergence of new forms of supportive organizations on and off the Internet; and © the 1960s are a misleading baseline because the era had an unusually high number of traditional organizations.

I lived through these eras, and to me Putnam's work is just more of the whining of the keep-America-white crowd who revelled in 'social' clubs that wouldn't allow Jews or 'coloreds' to join. They revere the Ozzie-and-Harriet '50's and never got over the '60's 'civil rights' era, and they don't acknowledge the emergence of new forms of social networking.

The comment above that the 1960's era is not a valid baseline because of the "unusually high" number of "traditional" (ie, white) organizations is right on: The post-war era was all about white

suburban family life where Mom baked pies for the (white) church and Dad belonged to the (white) Masons/Rotary/Kinsmen/etc club.

The post-war era was a natural reaction to the horror and family disruption of the war years, a unique and utopian blip in (white) history when the suburban dream was for whites only and protected by whites-only club rules and immigration rules.

I understand how that era came about, but how long could that contrived and racist house of cards really be expected to last?

Case in point: The Legion was a huge social club for the WW generations, but has stagnated and has little relevance for the new generations of veterans of VietNam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Obediently doing one's duty just doesn't wash when it's obvious that wars are being staged by governments for the benefit of their greedy corporatist 'handlers'

Putnam's work is using the information to improve social cohesion in modern communities, not to pine for the old days.

From my perspective, the WW and postWW eras were marked by compliance to authority, conformity to a social expectation, social and religious 'duty' and unquestioning obedience to authority.

The baby boomers of the civil rights and VietNam eras blew all of that out of the water.

Because it became apparent that neither governments, religions or corporate America could be trusted. Blind obedience wasn't social cohesion at all: It was just fear of reprisal, social shunning, employment/government blacklisting, the wrath of god.

So who's really the healthier society? One that hides in obedience and conformity in fear of reprisal?

Or one that accepts its own diversity and non-conformity and examines itself?

I know where I stand on that. It's appropriate for me to say, this Easter weekend, that you can stuff the Easter bonnets and gloves and demanding social conformity of the 50's where the sun don't shine. Never again.

To steal a phrase ... The (blind conformist) unexamined society isn't worth living in.

The data used was disputed – and there were a number of commentators who argued that what was being seen was change rather than necessarily decline.

I agree.

And when anyone spends all their time looking backwards pining for a utopian past that never existed ... well ... to those of us moving forward, all we ever see is an occasional glimpse of retreating asses.

Having the courage to move forward is the real challenge of today's society.

IMO, of course, whining and pining for a fairytale past that never really existed is for pathetic losers at best, and a sign of psychosis at worst ... the kind of psychosis that leads some to pick up a gun and start shooting innocent people because 'the world is bad'.

The Occupy movement that directly targets the military and industrial complex that rules us by controlling jobs and the flow of money (into their own pockets) is the healthiest social movement yet seen.

Edited April 6, 2012 by jacee

[Guest Manny]

Does multi-cultural mean, non-white?

[waldo]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam

In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on...

this is now the 2nd time you've directly referenced this 'Putnam study' and quoted the same wiki wording... even without giving consideration to the actual study methodology/results, the studies closing summation/recommendations do not align with your "anti-immigration, white-pride" mantra:

Robert Putnam - E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century

My argument here is that in the short run there is a tradeoff between diversity and community, but that over time wise policies (public and private) can ameliorate that tradeoff. Even while pressing forward with research to confirm and clarify these arguments, we must also begin to ask about their implications for public policy. This is surely not the place for a comprehensive proposal for immigration reform, but a few comments may illustrate the policy directions suggested by my analysis.

Immigration policy is not just about numbers and borders. It is also about fostering a sense of shared citizenship. Whatever decisions we reach on numbers and borders, America is in the midst of renewing our historical identity as a nation of immigrants, and we must remind ourselves how to be a successful immigrant nation.

•  Tolerance for difference is but a first step. To strengthen shared identities, we need more opportunities for meaningful interaction across ethnic lines where Americans (new and old) work, learn, recreate, and live. Community centers, athletic fields, and schools were among the most efficacious instruments for incorporating new immigrants a century ago, and we need to reinvest in such places and activities once again, enabling us all to become comfortable with diversity.

•  Most immigrants want to acculturate – to learn English, for example. Expanding public support for English-language training, especially in settings that encourage ties among immigrants and natives of diverse ethnic backgrounds, should be a high priority.

•  Since the long-run benefits of immigration and diversity are often felt at the national level (scientific creativity, fiscal dividends, and so forth), whereas the short-run costs (fragile communities, educational and health costs, for example) are often concentrated at the local level, there is a strong case for national aid to affected localities.

•  Our field studies suggest that locally based programs to reach out to new immigrant communities are a powerful tool for mutual learning. Religious institutions – and in our era, as a century ago, especially the Catholic church – have a major role to play in incorporating new immigrants and then forging shared identities across ethnic boundaries. Ethnically defined social groups (such the Sons of Norway or the Knights of Columbus or Jewish immigrant aid societies) were important initial steps toward immigrant civic engagement a century ago. Bonding social capital can thus be a prelude to bridging social capital, rather than precluding it. To force civic and religious groups who work with immigrants to serve as enforcement tools for immigration laws, as some have suggested, would be exceptionally counterproductive to the goal of creating an integrated nation of immigrants.

But we need to work toward bridging, as well as bonding. Senator Barack Obama, whose life story embodies ties between immigrant and native-born America, has called for

. . . an America where race is understood in the same way that the ethnic diversity of the white population is understood. People take pride in being Irish-American and Italian-American. They have a particular culture that infuses the (whole) culture and makes it richer and more interesting. But it's not something that determines people's life chances and there is no sense of superiority or inferiority. . . .

f we can expand that attitude to embrace African-Americans and Latino-Americans and Asian-Americans, then . . . all our kids can feel comfortable with the worlds they are coming out of, knowing they are part of something larger. (Obama 2007)

Scientific examination of immigration, diversity and social cohesion easily could be inflamed as the results of research become part of the contemporary political debate, but that debate needs to be informed by our best efforts to ascertain the facts. It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity. It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable. Max Weber instructed would-be political leaders nearly a century ago that ‘Politics is a slow boring of hard boards.’ The task of becoming comfortable with diversity will not be easy or quick, but it will be speeded by our collective efforts and in the end well worth the effort. One great achievement of human civilization is our ability to redraw more inclusive lines of social identity. The motto on the Great Seal of the United States (and on our dollar bill) and the title of this essay –e pluribus unum– reflects precisely that objective – namely to create a novel ‘one’ out of a diverse ‘many’.

[doitwell]

Max Weber has influenced many later social theorists, such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, György Lukács and Jürgen Habermas

All JEWS, all part of the critical theory that emerged out of the Frankfurt School.

Jews hate racially homogenous societies, and actively work (ethnic networking) to try and make white countries racially diverse.

Jews feel safe in racially diverse nations because they themselves are a minority.

Only Whites are dumb enough to allow themselves to become a minority in their own societies.

I agree that Whites are desperatley lacking a racial consciousness, unlike other races.

Edited April 6, 2012 by doitwell

[jacee]

Max Weber has influenced many later social theorists, such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, György Lukács and Jürgen Habermas

All JEWS, all part of the critical theory that emerged out of the Frankfurt School.

Jews hate racially homogenous societies, and actively work (ethnic networking) to try and make white countries racially diverse.

Jews feel safe in racially diverse nations because they themselves are a minority.

Only Whites are dumb enough to allow themselves to become a minority in their own societies.

I agree that Whites are desperatley lacking a racial consciousness, unlike other races.

Your point of view is disgusting.

I was going to say 'welcome to mlw', but instead I'm inclined to say 'don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You belong on stormfront.org with the rest of the white supremacists/neonazis.

I'm putting you on ignore.

[Signals.Cpl]

So what if it ruins nations? What are the nations that are diverse going to do? Segregate themselves? Or kick out anyone who is "them"? All American/Canadian/Britton deserve the same rights and treatment without consideration being given to their race, religion or colour.

Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.

Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.

Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

Less likelihood of working on a community project.

Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

Fewer close friends and confidants.

Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

this describes any dictatorship, and many communities that are exclusively one race, religion or culture.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Vineon]

So what if it ruins nations? What are the nations that are diverse going to do? Segregate themselves? Or kick out anyone who is "them"? All American/Canadian/Britton deserve the same rights and treatment without consideration being given to their race, religion or colour.

this describes any dictatorship, and many communities that are exclusively one race, religion or culture.

Without segregating or 'kicking anyone out', it should be possible to question some of our immigration policies without immediately being labeled a 'racist'.

[Michael Hardner]

Without segregating or 'kicking anyone out', it should be possible to question some of our immigration policies without immediately being labeled a 'racist'.

It should be, however nobody seems to be able to pull it off without relying on some poorly thought out prejudicial folk wisdom. The crux of it is economics, which is the contemporary equivalent of the medieval wizard's black magick.

[Jack Weber]

Max Weber has influenced many later social theorists, such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, György Lukács and Jürgen Habermas

All JEWS, all part of the critical theory that emerged out of the Frankfurt School.

Jews hate racially homogenous societies, and actively work (ethnic networking) to try and make white countries racially diverse.

Jews feel safe in racially diverse nations because they themselves are a minority.

Only Whites are dumb enough to allow themselves to become a minority in their own societies.

I agree that Whites are desperatley lacking a racial consciousness, unlike other races.

Lictor...

When are going to start quoting Julius Evola...Or Julius Streicher???

[Vendetta]

Are we allowed to use the terms racist or bigot in this thread, because if not there isn't much to say about it.

[Guest Manny]

IMO, of course, whining and pining for a fairytale past that never really existed is for pathetic losers at best, and a sign of psychosis at worst ... the kind of psychosis that leads some to pick up a gun and start shooting innocent people because 'the world is bad'.

The Occupy movement that directly targets the military and industrial complex that rules us by controlling jobs and the flow of money (into their own pockets) is the healthiest social movement yet seen.

Thanks for the insults. I don't know why I should respond to someone who chooses to insult me tat way, simply for having a different opinion. Do you really believe you are soo superior?

There have always been problems in society at any time. Yes even when the immigrants in Canada were Germans and Italians, they were disliked by those of British descent. But the only difference is they didn't try to make Canada like their homeland, politically. They enjoyed the freedom to indulge in their own culture but lived under the broad umbrella of multiculturalism in Canada. What does that mean?

Well, I aint no pseudo-intellectual big city liberal but I know what seems right. It means, obey the laws and protect the free society we've got. Not, bring in the outdated sharia laws and protect them, so that we have isolated communities which are literally a snapshot of some village in Pakistan, with its own Mullah.

Now, don't come in and take what I say on a tangent, as though I don't like muslims or whatnot. Cause that's not what I mean. Muslims have lived in Canada for a long time, and in the past they too understood something about the vision of this country. Live and let live, but stand on guard for Canada. Because what's out there in some of those places in the world is nothing but shit! We got it made, and we've got to preserve it.

Now take a look at places like London, England. Project into the future, in a democracy where the society is dominated by muslim theocrats. They have the right to vote in their own lawmakers! What do you think that means? We can see it happening already right here right now in Canada, look at the goddam Conservative party! They bring in mandatory sentences, they shut down the reform programs for convicts, they closed the prison farms. They de-regulate the environmental protections. Because they've got the power to do it, they can change the law, re-shape Canada.

And you know whose fault it really is? The goddam Liberals!! The corrupt Liberal government, under Chretien and Martin really screwed this country. And the clown show that followed only made things worse. No one wants to vote for them now, and we'll be stuck with these right wing theologians for a long time.

But that ain't as bad as what's coming, unless we can protect Canada from self-defeat by allowing everyone to have an equal say, to the point that it threatens the very dream of equality itself. That's why people are saying multiculturalism is a failure.

[TheNewTeddy]

Jews feel safe in racially diverse nations because they themselves are a minority.

Amen brother! That's why Israel has so many Buddhists and Hindus!

[Signals.Cpl]

Without segregating or 'kicking anyone out', it should be possible to question some of our immigration policies without immediately being labeled a 'racist'.

I am not suggesting a review and revision of the immigration laws is racist, the problem is we are already a diverse Nation, and so is the US. In my opinion, changing the immigration policies of Canada, is a good idea and much needed, however we are already a diverse society and thus changing the immigration policy will not have the immediate, nor short term effect on the issue that the poster brought up. Stating that minorities do not integrate with mainstream society and thus ruin a nation because well they live in enclaves populated by people of their cultural background might or might not be true, but immigration aside what is the change that is proposed to "fix" the problem if it actually resists.

[-TSS-]

Interesting points brought in this thread. Such a shame that the thread was started by an obvious WUM and therefore gets treated as such. Despite that there are some points we should consider.

Edited April 15, 2012 by -TSS-

[g_bambino]

It couldn't have been very long, because after WWII Canada was still intent on staying a 'white' country - non-whites not welcome.

Proof, please.

[Guest American Woman]

jacee, on 06 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said: It couldn't have been very long, because after WWII Canada was still intent on staying a 'white' country - non-whites not welcome.

Proof, please.

I would say that this cite confirms jacee's claim: From: The Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples/Immigration Policy/Harold Troper

Excerpts (emphasis mine):

Signs of racism and anti-Semitism were not hard to find. Just over a year after the guns fell silent in Europe, a public-opinion poll found that Canadians preferred the admission of Germans over Jews. Only the Japanese, so recently defeated in the Pacific and against whom racist wartime propaganda had been so vicious and effective, fared worse.

In the spring of 1947, Prime Minister Mackenzie King informed Parliament of his government’s decision to reopen the door to immigration a little. Canada, he promised, would not be flooded. Rather, “it is of the utmost importance to relate immigration to absorptive capacity.” And in King’s mind,

Canada’s capacity to absorb immigrants was as much tied to their ethnic or racial origins as it was to their absolute numbers.

The prime minister was only reflecting the national mood when he observed that

“the people of Canada do not wish to make a fundamental alteration in the character of their population through mass immigration.” Discrimination and ethnic selectivity in immigration would remain.

“Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a ‘fundamental human right’ of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy.”

With this repetition of the fundamental dictum that every state has a right to control who crosses its borders, Canada opened immigration, but selectively so to ethnic Europeans and not to others.

Ottawa gave priority to those with a proven track record for assimilation to the norms of Canadian society. Thus immigrants were selected in a descending order of ethnic preference from northern and western Europeans down through eastern and eventually southern Europeans and Jews as deemed necessary.

The renewal of immigration in late 1947 was more a reaffirmation of the ethnic and racial priorities set at the turn of the century than an innovative change in policy.

British, American, and northern European settlers were actively courted, but legislated barriers against Asians remained in place, and administrative tinkering assured that southern and eastern Europeans would at best find it difficult to enter Canada.

[cybercoma]

Apparently the OP skipped the conclusion to Putnam's study:

The task of becoming comfortable with diversity will not be easy or quick, but it will be speeded by our collective efforts and in the end well worth the effort. One great achievement of human civilization is our ability to redraw more inclusive lines of social identity.

[g_bambino]

I would say that this cite confirms jacee's claim...

It's an opinion that, especially in the third paragraph, somewhat parallels jacee's. The only factual material given - Mackenzie King's quoted words - don't explicitly demonstrate a pro-"white" attitude on the part of the Prime Minister; relating "immigration to absorptive capacity" and an avoidance of mass immigration does not immediately equate with "whities only". It does seem obvious, though, that Mackenzie King favoured an immigration policy that was selective; whether or not there was an official list that categorised ethnic groups by appealingness remains to be seen. But, I can see how it could be inferred that Mackenzie King did have some aversion (whether personally or politically driven) to certain groups, especially if his actions when faced with the arrival of the MS St. Lous are considered (though most (but not all) people of the Jewish faith and all Hebrews are Caucasian).

Regardless, Mackenzie King was out of office by the end of the following year - 1948. That leaves a two decade gap that jacee needs to fill in.

[ed.: +]

Edited April 15, 2012 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

It's an opinion that, especially in the third paragraph, somewhat parallels jacee's. The only factual material given - Mackenzie King's quoted words - don't explicitly demonstrate a pro-"white" attitude on the part of the Prime Minister; relating "immigration to absorptive capacity" and an avoidance of mass immigration does not immediately equate with "whities only".

The policies, the legislation, and the words, do pretty much equate with "white's only."

It does seem obvious, though, that Mackenzie King favoured an immigration policy that was selective; whether or not there was an official list that categorised ethnic groups by appealingness remains to be seen.

Again. Policy is the key. ie: what was being said, what was happening, tells the story.

But, I can see how it could be inferred that Mackenzie King did have some aversion (whether personally or politically driven) to certain groups, especially if his actions when faced with the arrival of the MS St. Lous are considered (though most (but not all) people of the Jewish faith and all Hebrews are Caucasian).

It's a historical account, referring also to the mindset of Canadians at the time. I guess everything that is written, every source, is nothing more than the opinion of the writer according to your reaction to the information presented here. I'll remember that in the future, for sure.

Regardless, Mackenzie King was out of office by the end of the following year - 1948. That leaves a two decade gap that jacee needs to fill in.

Her claim was: "after WWII Canada was still intent on staying a 'white' country," and the reality certainly confirms it. Your reaction to the information that was presented, your attempt to practically dismiss it as nothing more than someone's opinion, is rather telling. Apparently you're going to see and accept only what you want to see and accept.

[Guest American Woman]

Here's more:

In principle, Canadian immigration law has moved from being explicitly restrictive to non discriminatory. Prior to 1968, the overtly prejudicial law was based on a “nationality preference system” favouring European immigrants(Simmons 1990:141). However, with the emergence of the more “liberal,” “non-discriminatory” points system in October of 1967, the characteristics of the potential Canadian immigrant began to change. Since 1968, approximately 2.8 million immigrants from new origin countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America have arrived in Canada (ibid.). This “new wave” of immigration from “Third World” countries now constitutes two-thirds of the inflow to Canada

(ibid.).

link

[Guest American Woman]

Access from countries other than those that belonged to the “old” Commonwealth, the United States, and Europe was severely restricted, because the Liberals under Mackenzie King and his successor, Louis St. Laurent, were not prepared to abolish

Canada’s racist immigration policy

. The nominal credit for banishing racism from Canada’s immigration policy belongs to the Progressive Conservatives, who toppled the Grits in the federal election of 10 June 1957 after a 22–year absence from the government benches.

That's from Canada's government site on immigration: Citizenship and Immigration Canadawww.cic.gc.ca

[g_bambino]

The policies, the legislation, and the words, do pretty much equate with "white's only."

In your opinion.

Her claim was: "after WWII Canada was still intent on staying a 'white' country..."

In her opinion.

And, I repeat: Mackenzie King was gone from office by 1948. Pierre Trudeau didn't become prime minister until 1968. A 20 year gap for which no proof has yet been presented that "Canada was still intent on staying a 'white' country."