I happen to believe that separatism will solve racism much better, as no one is a victim of racism in a homogeneous environment. I happen to believe when times get rough, there will always be conflict between ethnic groups for job security. even in good times there's still some conflict. But, it seems many people mostly Liberal, but even sometimes Conservative believe that multiculturalism will solve racism. It seems contrary to my beliefs, many believe that when groups come together they express more solidarity. But, historic examples of this are lacking hardcore. Then they think that racism will be solved if all races cease to exist, even though I find this evil for wiping out unique peoples, it seems to be a fairly popular belief. Even if causing races to cease to exist might solve racism, it might take many hundreds, maybe even thousands of years to happen, if it ever does. So, to me separatism is much better. But, what's your opinion?
Well I don't want races wiped out. I prefer a world of genetic diversity. Right now there is a holocaust in the Congo where Pygmies are being enslaved, wiped out, and yes, even eaten. I think their uniqueness should be preserved somehow. I realize there are lots of people, most left leaning but some right leaning too, who want to breed everyone into sameness, where no one is different or unique. If they get their way, it will be a much poorer world for it.
Like Lil Mike, I like physical diversity; although the concept of "racial diversity" becomes flimsier with every multi racial child born. I was recently in a cultural sensitivity training aimed at stirring up a big dose of white guilt, when several of the white women in the room said, "Wait. My husband is black" and a white man said, "My wife is Asian". Another woman who anyone would have guessed was white said her father was black and she grew up in a Hispanic neighborhood. It all kind of backfired because most of the people in the room were surrounded with racial diversity in their private lives. There are many many more multi racial families than one might think. I think we do ourselves a great injustice when we frame everything in racial terms. Perhaps focusing on cultural differences would serve us better. In that concept, I understand separatism according to values, not race. When one culture destroys what another culture values, it does not provide an atmosphere of peace and growth for either. I think that is how countries came to be.
Multiculturalism is an utopian ideal fashionable in the Blair era and it does not work in the real world, especially when there are too many migrants. Britain voted for Brexit because the country was overrun by Eastern European migrants. The British and Poles are supposed to share the same European culture. What we need is proper immigration controls to pick and choose who can come to your country rather than separatism, which doesn't work either.
I don't know where you are from, but in the U.S. the idea that we can pick and choose who gets to come to this country is not going to happen. In the first place, the Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." So, in our society, all people are presumed to have God given Rights since your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestows upon you Rights, including Liberty, which are above the reach of government. OTOH, multiculturalism destroys nations. In the U.S. we initially started out granting citizenship to only whites. IF we were going to pick and choose anything, the only constitutional way would be to return to that method of governing. Under our current laws, I would agree with Sanctuary Cities if the same precedent allowed the people to create Covenant Communities and allow us to voluntarily live among those who share our ideals, values, etc.
An "us" can only be created in relation to a "them", thus multiculturalism is deemed to give birth to racist attitudes, stereotyping and other forms of ethno-nationalism. In a homogenous society, there is no reason to focus on race or ethnicity as a factor of identitification simply because everyone is the same. But, when x mixes with y and z, they all will start to point out differences as a mean of distinguishing themselves from one and other. This is what the basic anthropological explanations by Fredrik Barth on how ethnicity is constructed say.
You can't have a homogeneous environment though. Human nature will create division within any group of people. After all, most of the open hatred in the US is political rather than racial. many parts of the world with the worst ongoing conflicts are between people nominally of the same race, finding other reasons to divide and fight, may historic conflicts were nationalistic or socio-religion rather than racial. That said, I don't think multiculturalism is ever intended to "solve" racism either.
People will separate themselves - pretty much - automatically since people are social animals. This means that we prefer being around those who remind us of ourselves, be it culturally, ethnically or even in terms of hobbies. The most obvious identity-component in a multicultural society, of course, is "ethno-culture". People will group with their kin and stereotype the others to justify this grouping. In the multicultural society, we often see proof of this force of human nature; sociologist Zangwill noted that "the American melting-pot never happened" pointing out that the Italians live with- and marry other Italians, the Irish live with- and marry other Irishmen and the Hispanics live with- and marry other Hispanics etc etc. In contemporary Swedish society, it is very much the same. Although alot can be blamed on lousy migration/integration policy, it is also - very much - the result of man's tendency to ally with those who are like him. The only thing that really unites people is trade. In the Swat-valley of Pakistan live three different groups. They live in different parts and are highly endogamous. However, they are all specialised in different fields and therefore meet and socialise in order to trade. But, they never really "mix" to create a multicultural circle-jerk where everyone holds hands and sing "we shall overcome" Basically all sociological and anthropological insights speak against multiculturalism in the sense of "happy, peaceful, melting pots".
You're missing the bigger picture. In 10 generations there will be no such thing as diversity. We will all be mixed everything.
While there are certainly social pressures in that direction, they’re not definitive. Mixing does happen and over time the resistance to it reduces. The Irish and Italian Americans today are much more integrated, mixed and, significantly, accepted as part of mainstream society, than they were fifty or a hundred years ago. I’d suggest a major problem with proponents on all sides of this debate is that they expect any kind of change to happen much more quickly than is realistic.
It is still obvious that multiculturalism fosters racism; in a homogenous society there is no reason to create an ethnically based distinction between "us" and "them" whereas in a heterogenous society, where people are constantly reminded of the differences between "us" and "them" there is plenty of room for racism to grow. Mitchels ethnographic research on the cupper-miners in Rhodesia is offers interesting insights to the phenomenon of stereotyping - differents tribes, who previously lived in homogenous communities, moved to the mining towns to work and immediately, they started to "group with their own kind"; barracks were shared with people of the same tribe and same goes for tables in the lunchroom. Sometimes they could sit with different people of a different group, but only if the percieved cultural/ethnic lines were small. I think the way of distinguishing strangers went by the scheme of; (i) I'd let him marry my sister, (ii) I would have a beer with him and (iii) I would never even talk to him. Roosens has concluded the same type of behaviour in the study of Flems and Vallones in Brussels and so has Hylland-Eriksen in studying the people of Mauritius.
You’re still working on the flawed presumption that a homogenous society is even possible and that actual racism is the only issue. Here in the UK there is certainly plenty of tension between natives and immigrants (on nominally racial, religious or simplistic “not like me!” grounds) but there’s also tension between English and Scots, north and south, urban and rural, rich and poor, left and right, one side of town and the other, my sister and Sharon down the road who thinks she’s so much better than she is... That isn’t to say that bringing new “types” of people in doesn’t add to the problem but it doesn’t challenge the idea that you can still somehow draw a line (or build a wall ) and ensure everyone on your side are (and are seen as being ) the same. Have you never seen siblings fight?
Certainly not. I am well aware of the social complexity of groups and therefore know it goes way beyond ethnicity. Hence all my posts carefully uses the term "ethnically based distinction". Obviously tnere would be conflicts in an ethnically homogenous society too, but they would not be based on race/ethnicity, but this thread happens to be about racism and that is why I so blindly focus on ethnicity. Scots, Brits, Welsh and Celts are different ethnic groups. Even though they might be "quite the same" in actuality, all that really matters is perception and there happens to be a very big percieved difference by the members themselves. Well, this does not really have to do with the topic in any way at all
The OP is trying to create the impression that separating people racially leads to a better society. He needs the exclusive focus on race because his hypothesis fails without it. You can’t ignore the reality in which such a policy would have to exist in. That proves my point. Even if you think you’ve established a racially homogeneous society, people will find excuses to create “us” and “them”, be that on false perceptions of (or manufactured) ethnic differences or other grounds. The fact remains that we can’t not have “multiculturalism” even if we wanted to.
Not necessarily a "better society", but surely a less racist one. The question up for discussion is not "what solves us and them, multicultarlism or separatism?" it is "what solves racism [...]" and based on that it is pretty damn obvious that ethnic homogenity or "separatism" is the best answer.
Maybe, maybe not. Jews, and Gypsies were living in Europe for ages, and there wasn't a whole lot of mixing. Besides, if what you say is true, then it's awful to replace everyone's heritage.
If you’re not seeking to create a better society, what’s the point? I don’t think the kind of thing the OP is referring to would lead to less racism anyway. If the British didn’t have all the Poles and Arabs to hate, we’d just fall back to the English and Scots hating each other instead. That’s a bit like “When did you stop hitting your wife?” though. He asked a specific question but it has an underlying motive behind it and if you give a straight answer to the simple hypothetical, he’ll jump back in with the “gotcha”. It’s important to wrap any answer in practicality and reality.
However it does seem odd that if you already have internal tension (English-Scot) what advantage is there to adding to that?
