Diversity

[FinalEnigma]

another member posted the following

Those progressives who espouse the virtues of Diversity while going "not in my back yard!" are not only hypocritical but downright dishonest since their aversion to vibrancy in their own vicinity reveals that they do know that Diversity is a net harm yet they go on espousing the goodness.

Bolding mine.

This section appears to claim that diversity, specifically diversity in population within a country, is a net harm.

Is ethnic diversity harmful? is cultural diversity harmful? are they beneficial? why or why not?

[FinalEnigma]

Over the long term, majority populations can tolerate small minorities that assimilate to a significant degree (I speak, of course, in terms of race). That's normal 'diversity'. But 'Diversity' attempts to mass import immigrants in big numbers and self-deluding that this won't end in mass ethnic conflict.

My apologies, I wasn't seeing the distinction.

But lets look at this argument. Let me ask a question before I make assumptions again.

How are you defining ethnic conflict?

[Hamsaka]

another member posted the following

Those progressives who espouse the virtues of Diversity while going "not in my back yard!" are not only hypocritical but downright dishonest since their aversion to vibrancy in their own vicinity reveals that they do know that Diversity is a net harm yet they go on espousing the goodness.

Bolding mine.

This section appears to claim that diversity, specifically diversity in population within a country, is a net harm.

Is ethnic diversity harmful? is cultural diversity harmful? are they beneficial? why or why not?

The bolded statement is a personal opinion, or must be, as it was not supported but merely claimed. I agree with the posters who don't assign good or bad values to diversity -- it is simply a fact, even within groups who dream of complete homogeneity. Assigning an objective value to diversity is meaningless and sort of an oxymoron, if you think about it.

Inevitably, diversity will be threatening to a group or nation that cherishes obedience to an absolute authority. The group or nation doesn't have to be religious, but most commonly they are. Secular ideologies work just as well, including 'celebrating diversity' (the RIGHT kind, of course ).

I wonder if there are any studies (with outcomes) of the effects of objectively qualifying diversity as 'good'? Fearing and loathing diversity has been studied, and 'celebrating' diversity is an understandable counter-reaction to traditional pressure to homogenize.

It's not like we have a choice about diversity, and assigning it a value implies a choice in the matter. It's just a fact of existence. Embracing diversity, warts and all, seems a more practical and useful response. This planet is rapidly 'shrinking', and our diversity in all ways we are different from one another is here to stay, until we colonize exoplanets and can have a WHOLE world, for say, vegans . Then we'll see just how diverse the vegans really are.

[Paprika]

Over the long term, majority populations can tolerate small minorities that assimilate to a significant degree (I speak, of course, in terms of race). That's normal 'diversity'. But 'Diversity' attempts to mass import immigrants in big numbers and self-deluding that this won't end in mass ethnic conflict.

My apologies, I wasn't seeing the distinction.

But lets look at this argument. Let me ask a question before I make assumptions again.

How are you defining ethnic conflict?

Things ranging from this and this to pure genocide.

[FinalEnigma]

Over the long term, majority populations can tolerate small minorities that assimilate to a significant degree (I speak, of course, in terms of race). That's normal 'diversity'. But 'Diversity' attempts to mass import immigrants in big numbers and self-deluding that this won't end in mass ethnic conflict.

My apologies, I wasn't seeing the distinction.

But lets look at this argument. Let me ask a question before I make assumptions again.

How are you defining ethnic conflict?

Things ranging from this and this to pure genocide.

Sorry I took so long to reply. I don't have much time right now before I have to start work, but here's an initial response so that we can keep something going:
Your argument appears to be that bringing in large numbers of immigrants at once leads to ethnic conflict, therefore we should not bring in large numbers of immigrants to a place at once.

My first counter (I've a few, but lets deal with them one at a time) is this:
Ethnic conflict is the result of racism and xenophobia. I do not believe that a civilized society should make decisions based upon wrong behavior.
This is precisely equivalent to a school principal who, when confronted with the fact that an openly gay student has been assaulted at their school, replies with "well, being openly gay causes you to be bullied. He shouldn't have been openly gay."

Do you think that we should make school policy based on how bullies behave? Do you think that we should make political decisions based on bowing to racism and xenophobia and allowing people who are doing the wrong thing to dictate our policy?

[Paprika]

Sorry I took so long to reply. I don't have much time right now before I have to start work, but here's an initial response so that we can keep something going:
Your argument appears to be that bringing in large numbers of immigrants at once leads to ethnic conflict, therefore we should not bring in large numbers of immigrants to a place at once.

My first counter (I've a few, but lets deal with them one at a time) is this:
Ethnic conflict is the result of racism and xenophobia. I do not believe that a civilized society should make decisions based upon wrong behavior.

I think you might want to put this more clearly as law and social mores are largely oriented against what is deemed as 'wrong' behaviour.

This is precisely equivalent to a school principal who, when confronted with the fact that an openly gay student has been assaulted at their school, replies with "well, being openly gay causes you to be bullied. He shouldn't have been openly gay."

Do you think that we should make school policy based on how bullies behave?

See above, mutatis mutandis: I think you might want to put this more clearly as school policy is often oriented against what is deemed as 'wrong' behaviour.

[Jashwell]

My first counter (I've a few, but lets deal with them one at a time) is this:
Ethnic conflict is the result of racism and xenophobia. I do not believe that a civilized society should make decisions based upon wrong behavior.

No, ethnic conflict is the result of the existence of multiple ethnicities, as well as differences between them.

Ethnic conflict doesn't require racism or xenophobia. If you were to dislike or punish those who circumcised their children, Jewish populations would be disproportionately affected.

Racism or xenophobia doesn't require ethnic conflict, especially if they exist in isolation. The obvious example would be within similar ethnicity groups and populations (e.g. similar common beliefs, practices, overlapping friendship groups, etc). Relatably, forced association without integration leads to ethnic conflict.

This is precisely equivalent to a school principal who, when confronted with the fact that an openly gay student has been assaulted at their school, replies with "well, being openly gay causes you to be bullied. He shouldn't have been openly gay."

The problem is (presumably) the assault, not the reason behind it. Even that response might have nothing to do with justification or policy. It's highly doubtful that the principal would be banning being openly gay or condoning assault if the victim is openly gay - even if they had said, word for word, "He shouldn't have been openly gay.".

If the situation were reversed, and the student had been assaulted for having or having expressed homophobic beliefs, would you say the same to the principal who says "He shouldn't have been so openly homophobic."?

What should the principal have done, assault having already been banned?
Should there be worse punishments for offences inspired by homophobia?
Should they have sent homophobes to be re-educated?

Do you think that we should make school policy based on how bullies behave? Do you think that we should make political decisions based on bowing to racism and xenophobia and allowing people who are doing the wrong thing to dictate our policy?

Like affirmative action?

[Haven]

Over the long term, majority populations can tolerate small minorities that assimilate to a significant degree (I speak, of course, in terms of race). That's normal 'diversity'. But 'Diversity' attempts to mass import immigrants in big numbers and self-deluding that this won't end in mass ethnic conflict.

Do you mean like what happened in the Americas when Europeans invaded and colonized the continents? They certainly made no attempts to assimilate, and in fact systematically murdered much of the indigenous population.

[Haven]

To answer Paprika's post further:

1. What Paprika is doing is victim blaming--placing the blame for ethnic conflict (xenophobia, racism, etc.) on the marginalized minority for "failing to assimilate," "being different," and so on, rather than on the bigoted majority who is marginalizing the minority. This is absurd. The majority group controls the power structures of society, so claiming that some immigrant minority (especially from a refugee background) is oppressing them (by simply being present) is absolutely ludicrous.

2. Immigrants into Western (European?) nations are not an "invading army" looking to start "ethnic conflict." Instead, they are simply ordinary folks--parents, kids, spouses, workers, etc.--looking for a better life. Some are fleeing war-torn regions, others are simply looking for better work opportunities and more financially stable lives. Why demonize these people? There is no reason--apart from bigotry--to do this.

3. Mass immigration to Western nations would not exist if not for the centuries of oppressive colonialism carried out by these same Western nations. People from the global South wouldn't be moving to Europe in large numbers if Europe didn't spend hundreds of years exploiting and pillaging Africa and Asia. The immigration "crisis" (in the eyes of xenophobes) the West is seeing today is the consequence of colonialism.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 18 by Haven]

Paprika blames 'Diversity', a term he uses that includes policies involving the mass importation of immigrants. How is this blaming immigrants? He even said attempts to mass import. He clearly has a problem with certain kinds of policies and those who want them - that's blaming locals, not immigrants.

How are bigots the majority? Bigot is derogatory, racist is derogatory, people who make suspected-racist statements in their own private lives have been fired or expected to resigned. Bigots and racists are a marginalised minority (if not a minority, they're certainly not represented, and they're somehow marginalising themselves).

[Hamsaka]

Over the long term, majority populations can tolerate small minorities that assimilate to a significant degree (I speak, of course, in terms of race). That's normal 'diversity'. But 'Diversity' attempts to mass import immigrants in big numbers and self-deluding that this won't end in mass ethnic conflict.

My apologies, I wasn't seeing the distinction.

But lets look at this argument. Let me ask a question before I make assumptions again.

How are you defining ethnic conflict?

Things ranging from this and this to pure genocide.

Sorry I took so long to reply. I don't have much time right now before I have to start work, but here's an initial response so that we can keep something going:
Your argument appears to be that bringing in large numbers of immigrants at once leads to ethnic conflict, therefore we should not bring in large numbers of immigrants to a place at once.

My first counter (I've a few, but lets deal with them one at a time) is this:
Ethnic conflict is the result of racism and xenophobia. I do not believe that a civilized society should make decisions based upon wrong behavior.
This is precisely equivalent to a school principal who, when confronted with the fact that an openly gay student has been assaulted at their school, replies with "well, being openly gay causes you to be bullied. He shouldn't have been openly gay."

Do you think that we should make school policy based on how bullies behave? Do you think that we should make political decisions based on bowing to racism and xenophobia and allowing people who are doing the wrong thing to dictate our policy?

You've gotten to the heart of the issue in several ways (what I put in bold font).

Ethnic conflict, unless Paprika can elaborate otherwise (honest request), is rooted in abhorrent human attitudes and behaviors. These behaviors are not necessary to the human condition. Now, for cats, it may be. As a kid I discovered cats that do not know each other are enemies, period flat out. Cats who are unfamiliar with each other, lacking enough sentience to have any other choice, should not be shut in a room together in hopes they'll get along without conflict. Humans, however, can be held to a higher standard

In other words, it is against our best interests as a species to 'normalize' aggressive and hostile behavior between groups. A school that forbids students coming out as openly gay so as to prevent 'conflict' implicitly affirms the bullying behavior as 'normal' and acceptable. That is the logical extension.

There can be no legitimized 'excuse' made for bombing a German gymnasium housing refugees, or attacking elderly Jews in their own home. These are NOT inevitable human behaviors. And in terms of behaviors to be elevated into some kind of legislation, or used in support of it, these are barbaric and base human behaviors against the best interests of humans. It isn't 'good enough' to protect your own anymore and ta heck with the rest of 'em. Refugees are not distinct 'others'. Beneath the cultural accretions, they are indistinguishable from 'us'. That is not a liberal wish, that is a fact.