A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University's Robert Putnam, one of the world's most influential political scientists. His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone - from their next-door neighbour to the mayor. This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that". The core message of the research was that, "in the presence of diversity, we hunker down", he said. "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." Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history", but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where "diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians' picnic". http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html Multiculturalism is monoculture. Nationalism is diversity. False diversity, or multiculturalism, obliterates culture and instills paranoia.
Well duh, different population groups evolved together in isolated regions: they have innate tendancies to trust ingroup members while looking upon outgroup members as suspicious. You guys are just now figuring this out?
And Putnam is saying that to build trust between the groups, create a new "us". Find the common ground.
too much difference to find a strong enough common ground: just gotta live with ethnic conflict and competition. Evolutionary psychologists say that if resources are very abundant, then the ethnic groups will get along better, but when resources become scarce, ethnic groups slip into tribalism mode and increase intra-ethnic cooperation and inter-ethnic competition. So, as long as Europe, America, Canada, and Australia/zealand is wealthy, ethnic conflict will be minimum.
What a load of bullshit, there is far more in common than different. You would have to go into isolated amazonia to find a culture "too" different. It is just an poor excuse by yourself to not bother.
Why should I transfer my resources to facilitate the fruition of your interests? It is not in my interest to dumb myself down, as well as my Chinese race as a whole, in order to become more common with other population groups (whom I shall keep nameless) who prefer a life of ebonics, lowriders, jin and juice, baggy pants, and popping caps in each other's asses.
No resources, just a change in attitude. And it is "our" interest. I am suggesting you have more in common than you realise. You have missed the point completely.
I think I got your point: but, I think that since all population groups already have their own indegenous lands, why are we fighting to even FURTHER mix it all up when there is more harmony when people live among people that share their own values, interests, and genes?
Because the migration of peoples is inevitable, people move for change, a new life, a new challenge, job opprtunities. Out of interest, are you living in China at the moment?
I think ideally, everyone should have stayed in their original lands. But we are much mixed up now. Plus, the Euros in America/England just blew up the Arab race to pieces: so maybe I should not be concerned about their culture being replaced. Maybe if they left the Arabs alone . . .
Like Europeans staying away from the North American continent? Or the Native American Indians staying away from there previously? Or just everybody staying in Africa in the very first place.
no country existed in america to begin with: there was a bunch of indian tribes killing and and raping each other for land/resource conquest. so the whites joined in on the killing and was the final victor. native indians moved into an empty area: they were the first inhabitants. Africans moved upward into empty areas: no harm, no foul.
Charles Wong: I rather like your nationalist perspective on initia homelands. We should strive to remain seperated as we are now and not mix as you suggest.
America initially had a law stating that only 13% of population or so should be non-european. Once that ceiling was reached, it was to be maintained. but they did away with it due to political activism by energetic immigrant lobbies and so forth. Now america is 35% non-european and there is tons of ethnic conflict, constant litigation into accusations of discrimination and hate crimes, ethnic groups fighting over which one of their indigenous homelands should get all the american aide: Jews fighting for Israel, arabs for palestine, Hindus for India, Mexicans for Mexico, etc. Mexicans want to do away with english and the american/mexican border and fly the mexican flag and have national mexican holidays celebrated in america, jews want to ban all christian and islamic symbols from public places but allow Jewish symbols as the exception and they want a holocaust museum in every town in america, Blacks got their Martin Luther king junior holiday but still complain and want more affirmative action, etc. Now, what if the American borders were closed right from the very beginning? Problem solved Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't think anyone should be deported: rather just close the borders now, no more mixing it up from this point on. those that still complain can be deported; those that respect the culture can stay.
