Racial tensions have been higher in America lately, and some Europeans are likely rethinking their stance on multiculturalism while struggling with Islam. In schools of Oregon and California, I've always been taught that multiculturalism is a good thing in that it brings many different ideas together and enriches our lives. But democratic processes cause things to run according to the majority (whether manipulated by propaganda or not), and if there are very different minorities living with the majority, it seems plausible that their interests might not be met - and they seem to be screaming about it now. Many whites are afraid of being called a racist in our public lives, but you don't have to be a racist to reject multiculturalism. It's possible that different kinds of people really should live in different places, and get along as nations but not live with each other under the exact same laws. I used to think multiculturalism was clearly a positive thing, but now I'm kind of on the fence, hoping some of you might have some insight. (Obviously not an original topic, I know, but given recent events, there could be more to discuss now).
Diversity is good. The best and brightest periods of human history have been when diversity cooperated. I am diversity incarnated! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Rogeriana
Diversity gives your enemies a better chance to kill you, it is always the fact in history. The first people lived in china, Taiwan, japan, America, they all got killed by the new comers. simple people like it, let's those simple people get what they ask for. In Malaysia, Chinese population was 40% of the total population, at that point, both sides started to kill each other. The 1969 Riots Against the Chinese in Malaysia http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/05/26/the-1969-riots-against-the-chinese-in-malaysia/ racists are good people.
Someday probably in about a couple of hundred years or so there will no longer be any black or white people in America only light brown. Is the color of my descendants skin more important than what I teach them? I do not think so.
Diversity like this can only work with a strong government that can exert absolute control over the people's daily life. In our backwards democratic society based on foolish majority, minorities cannot exist because it defeats the system and literally invents corruption.
There are people will fight to death for their good looking. They do not like brown skin. If you want to a flat nose. This is your business. If most american want to go to hell, it is also ok. - - - Updated - - - Are you indian?
Perchance, but is that really the point? The point is we cant have diversity if there is a majority. Take out a two party system and implement a totalitarian leadership and you can have true diversity. Another fun flaw of democracy.
Diversity is no good. That is why india and Brazil are worse than usa. And america is going to be india no 2, brownstan.
Cultural diversity is counter to the American culture of assimilation. In America, ethnic diversity is celebrated but the culture is American.
Btw, do you say "Namasté" or "Namaskar" when you greet? In any case ... Namaskar. [When I was in Nepal I noted they almost always use "Namasté"]. The problem of "diversity" is that we should understand the nature of the complexity of modern societies. I'm not like my neighbors [they are "diverse"], we are all unique individuals, if we want. So that we have to specify that "diversity" exists and it's natural, but there has to be a social level of "identity" [I prefer the word "identity" to the word "equality" in this context]. We are all Italians, if someone coming from abroad to live here wants to carry his own traditions to Italy ... he's free to do that, but he has to become Italian, if he wants to stay here. If he wants to stay here remaining Arab, Syrian, Lebanese ... without becoming also Italian, that's a problem. If he comes here with the idea to work here for some years and than go back to his country of origin, that's a different matter, anyway, while he is in Italy he has at least to accept and respect the Italian identity. Otherwise he can go and work elsewhere.
Well you’re never going to get rid of diversity. We’ve always had it, just in different ways. Catholics and Protestants used to be in conflict just as serious as those we see today. Europe was riven by wars between different peoples throughout its history (and arguably still is). People get in to arguments and fights because they follow the same sport but support different teams. Gangs form on the basis of which street people live on. Heck, siblings are famous for arguing and fighting and you can’t get much less fundamental diversity than that. Human beings have an amazing ability to find differences between “us” and “them”, whoever the two groups are. However much we have in common, the differences will be identified, exaggerated and resented. As with so many of our social problems, it’s an inevitable side effect of otherwise positive features, the general social structures that form out families, streets, cities and nations in the first place. Multiculturalism is one of terms that means subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different things to different people and in different contexts. I don’t think you can achieve anything by simple saying it’s a good or bad thing, you need to look at more detail in to what you’re really talking about (because if nothing else, it might not be what you actually think you’re talking about). The idea of different kinds of people living in different places because how do you define the kinds. A split on one characteristic will retain diversity on another and splitting on too many characteristics results in impractically small groups (which will still be diverse). Ultimately, you’d need 7 billion places because there are 7 billion types of person. The idea of splitting people up every time there is a conflict between them reminds me of the old joke about a man who goes to the doctor complaining “My arm hurts when I lift it like this.”. The doctors response; “Don’t lift it like that then.”.
why you need diversity? 1) 40% of American serial killers are blacks. Serial killer - Wikipedia in New York, if there are only whites, the murder rate will go down to less than 10%. Sweden welcomes those immigrates, and now Sweden is the capital of rapists in EU, The evil words, penned by a black rapper "Come here Swedish Girls, I will stick a knife in your puxxx" 2, in japan, in china, in Taiwan, in America, in india, the native people all got killed or/enslaved by new comers. Ainu people were the first people live in Japan. Japanese were from mainland east asia. Ainu people were killed or enslaved. Ainu people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Now you are the native people, and they are the new comers. But those simple people want to disarm and dis-alarm, that all. 3, Those simple people should know that the human nature and the law of nature will never change. The best thing is separation.
European are all whites, their cultures are almost the same. It is not diversity. Only Spanish were ruled by blacks for 700 years, so they look different.
Yeah I say namaskar. Anyways, the problem with assimilation like that is that it's hard to do if you can't force or upon people because there well always be that guy who says he refuses to be Italian but also says he won't leave. Yeah culture is find and foreign culture is often an interesting new perspective, but refusal to assimilate is a problem
There are loads of non-white people whose ancestors have been from Europe for generations, who have been born and bred in Europe and are therefore culturally and socially European. There are white people in Europe who were born and bred elsewhere and are therefore socially and culturally different. There is a diversity of cultures, religions, languages, politics and outlooks across the continent (as there is across the other continents). I could easily find another European with whom I have countless differences yet could (indeed have) find an Asian with whom I have a vast amount in common. And regardless of the commonalities groups of people share, my point stands that we will still find differences. There is conflict in Ukraine right now between ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians. They will have vast amounts in common socially and culturally yet they’ve still found enough difference to literally hate each other. There’s no more or less animosity there than there is between Europeans and North Africans right now. The common theme isn’t diversity, it’s humanity.
There are loads of non-white people whose ancestors have been from Europe for generations, >>>MOD EDIT Rule 7<<<
This is one of those cases where I can find something in every post with which I can agree, but obviously only a sophist could agree with everything in every post. Diversity is fine so long as everyone adopts a live and let live approach. Without diversity, I wouldn't be able to eat pizza or Chinese food. On the other hand, we need too avoid taking it to extremes. For example, if a certain group is committing more crime than other groups,.that needs to be dealt with, not "embraced" as a cultural "difference."
if two races have so much friction that they are killing one another, then they should be segregated/separated. the ideologies are just two different. you wouldn't place two individuals who violently hate each other in the same room together. if the proximity is too great, then you'll just start a bloody war.
I agree with this. That should be a warning. Groups don’t commit crime (unless those groups are “the Mafia” or “criminals”. One of the issues here is tarring all members of a group by the actions of a subset, even if it’s a disproportionate subset. Crime is the classic example. Lots of people talk about how “blacks” commit more crime, which statistically is true. Of course, “men” commit a more crime too. “Young men” even more so. The vast majority of the crime commit by “blacks” are committed by “young black men”. It’s rare to hear people talking about “male crime” or “youth crime” but you hear “black crime” all the time. I’d suggest that’s because most the people talk are men and were young men or have children who are young men – those groups include “us”. Most of them aren’t associated with the “black” group in the same way and so that’s where the division is drawn. In a single race environment, I suspect “youth crime” would be a big ticket issue instead because people would still have the instinct to find a “them” to distance “us” from. Obviously we need to investigate disproportionate crime figures (though we also need to look at all the potential factors, not just the most apparent ones) but I think it’d be much better to look at it in the context of “Why are more crimes committed by this part of our society?” rather than “Why do they commit more crime than us?”. We’re not good at that though (well, “we” are but “they” aren’t ).
