DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on August 15, 2007, 05:11:59 PM
-
Your thoughts?
The United States was not built on the notion of diversity. It was build on the notion of e pluribus unum: from many we become one. You could study to become an American, and provided you did so, you would be accepted. There might be initiation rituals: "No Irish need apply"; but over time, as the Jewish police captain in Serpico says, "When I joined the force you had to have an uncircumcised shamrock between your legs to get promoted." Far from the objects of discrimination, Irish had become favored. The same happened with Italians. St. Patrick's Day Parades, Columbus Day Parades, Serbian Halls, recall those times when we celebrated our diverse origins -- but did so as part of Americana.
You could study to become an American, and over time we were becoming one. The Melting Pot worked. There was a long delay in allowing American Blacks to become part of that process, but even that was happening -- until we discovered diversity as a goal. Now the very idea of e pluribus unum is derided.
When I was a guest of Nokia in Finland a few years ago, I was introduced by the President to a Vice President: "He is a Swede who lives in Finland." It turns out that this man's family had lived in Finland for over a hundred years. At the time I thought that was odd. I suppose today it can happen here.
The United States was built on the notion of the Melting Pot: once you became an American, you were American first and your origin wasn't important. We didn't always live up to those ideals -- it took Truman and the Korean War to end segregation in the Armed Forces -- but it was the ideal. No more. We are not told to forget the Melting Pot and becoming American.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view479.html
-
Thoughts are simple (though will obviously referred to as bigoted by the ignorant). The U.S is absolutely a melting pot, and as the title refers to, is one that allows peope to come to america and meld their culture into ours. But this is still America, where people come to be Americans, and take part in the American way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which also translates into people needing to assimilate into being Americans, unless their plan/goal is simply to visit, then go back home. In which case, we hope they had a pleasant stay & a safe trip home
Those that wish to stay and be apart of America, are encouraged to bring their unique cultures with them, share them with america if they wish. But they do NOT demand that america bow to them and their culture. They do not demand that we learn to speak their language. They do not demand we provide them all forms of official paperwork in their own language. They do not demand that we open our borders to any and all who wish to come here
And historically, most immigrants made no such demands. Historically, most immigrants came here to be Americans, while remaining intimately connected with their particular culture & heritage. Alas, the PC crud would seem to have convinced many of the newer immigrants that they should be able to make such demands :-\
-
The melting pot days are done. The dream is over.
-
all I ask is nobody mess with my chances to get a job or progress.
none of that glass ceiling nonsense.
-
I disagree strongly. What Mr. Pournelle seems to be advocating is not a Melting Pot, but a Smelting Pot, where all becomes uniform and that which is not American is discarded. That is not what America was or is. He says, "You could study to become an American, and provided you did so, you would be accepted." No, this is inaccurate. All the complaints that exist now about immigrants not assimilating into the culture, not speaking English, forming their own communities, these are complaints that have existed against immigrants for at least a hundred years if not two. That's one reason why many big cities have a "Chinatown" and/or a "Little Italy", places like that.
And no, E Pluribus Unum does not mean "from many we become one." It means "out of many, one." A more modern translation, as best as my research can discover, might be "many uniting as one." In other words, many come together as one, not that many become one. One strength America has had has been the diversity of its people. And the notion of people sinking into a uniform culture is one I associate with totalitarianism, not with a free republic. So I cannot agree with Mr. Pournelle.
-
Pournelle is referring to assimilation, not homogenization.
Much like a well cooked stew each ingredient adds its unique flavor to the mix.
I don't thing the melting pot idea is dead, but i do think it has fallen out of favor with a growing segment of America.
-
Pournelle is referring to assimilation, not homogenization.
Then perhaps he has confused the two. He seems to think diversity and e pluribus unum are mutually exclusive. Seems to me that diversity is the many that unite as one. Diversity, after all is not division. Being different is not being divided. Much like a well cooked stew, each ingredient adds its unique flavor to the mix.
-
Do you have a problem with assimilation? Does assimilation mean foregoing your roots?
I don't think so.
Is assimilation not the best course for american immigrants?
If so, why not?
-
it depends on what assimilation means
after 9-11 I hear folks say hindu` and muslims (anybody with a turbin)should assimilate
meaning never openly practice your culture.
but notice nobody ever gave example of european culture sacrificed to be american
don`t recalled st.patricks days or octoberfest being banned and those are definately unamerican.
-
Do you have a problem with assimilation?
When it happens naturally or voluntarily, no. When people want to enforce it (not saying anyone advocated that), yes. When people complain about diversity, yeah, I do have a bit of a problem with assimilation then because it sounds like the ones complaining expect some sort of Borg assimilation to a uniformity, an homogenization, rather than merely something different added to the mix.
Does assimilation mean foregoing your roots?
Not completely. Or at least it shouldn't. But I do sometimes shake my head at those who talk about becoming an American without forsaking one's roots, as if someone can somehow lose nothing of his/her original culture while he/she assimilates into American culture. It's kinda like saying, I don't expect you to change, but you have to follow the new rules. By expecting people to assimilate of course you're expecting people to change. What is both mildly amusing and mildly annoying is when people complain about immigrants coming here and demanding things from government. Demanding things, actions, special favors, whatever, from government is by now an integral part of American society. Why should anyone be surprised and/or offended when immigrants follow the example we have set?
Is assimilation not the best course for american immigrants?
If so, why not?
Voluntary assimilation, yes. If people who do not speak English come here and do not learn English, then they suffer trying to get along without it. If enough people who speak some non-English language live in a particular area, then the area may end up adapting, say by means of businesses using bi-lingual signs. That's not a bad thing. That isn't a destruction of culture. That is an enrichment of culture. In the meantime, the children of those immigrants and the children of the area natives will get to learn about each other's language. How could that ever be destructive?
I don't advocate assimilation as such. I advocate adaptation. And to me, that is what the Melting Pot is about. People come here from other lands. They adapt. The people who lived here already adapt. And more people come from other places, and the whole process continues. Some individuals maybe more resistant to change than others, but that is life.
And as best I can determine, by the third generation, the decendants of the immigrants are, far more often than not, speaking English and quite assimilated into American culture (whatever that is). So I find all this complaining about immigrants not assimilating, complaining that has been going on for decades, to be short-sighted and needless.
Notice should also be paid to the fact that whatever American culture is, it is that because the immigrants who came here from other places made it so. So the idea that we're somehow losing something uniquely American as a result of immigrants coming here and not all acting the way we want, I think is bogus.
-
So assimilation or adaptation in your book is not a bad thing as long as the long arm of the law is not involved. Am i stating your position correctly?
I'm not sure if it is still a requirement of citizenship but once upon a time rudimentary english skills were required. If the policy is still in effect do you have a problem with that?
-
So assimilation or adaptation in your book is not a bad thing as long as the long arm of the law is not involved. Am i stating your position correctly?
Basically, yes.
I'm not sure if it is still a requirement of citizenship but once upon a time rudimentary english skills were required. If the policy is still in effect do you have a problem with that?
As a requirement for naturalization? No.
-
Then correct me if iam wrong but your problem is not with assimilation and adaptation upto and ncluding learning English.
Your problem is with those who hide their dislike of furriners under some other more acceptable issue like immigration, balkanization or some other social theory
Am i still on target?
-
I think you might be oversimplifying a bit, but basically, yes, that is correct. I don't recall having ever said I was against people assimilating into our culture. I tend to object to assertions that people who don't assimilate according to some arbitrary set of rules are somehow ungrateful immigrants. I also object to the idea that diversity is somehow contrary to the notion of a Melting Pot. The diversity is the Melting Pot.
-
Please define your use of the term diversity.
Are you saying hyphenated status is more important that national status?
irish- american takes precedence over american?
-
Please define your use of the term diversity.
Variety, differing from one another, having differing characteristics, heterogeneity.
Are you saying hyphenated status is more important that national status?
irish- american takes precedence over american?
No. I'm saying Irish-Americans are no more or no less American than German-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, whatever. And vice versa, if you catch my drift. I'm saying people like Mr. Pournelle, who certainly appear to object to diversity, are wrong to do so. I'm saying there never was a time when immigrants all came here to assimilate and be American and speak nothing but English. I'm saying that I don't consider people who come here to live and work and play to be un-American if they don't learn English. I'm saying that American culture is what it is because people from other places came here, bringing their cultures and languages and foods and ideas with them. I'm saying the diversity of our people, the heterogeneity of our society is our society, and our culture, and our strength. I'm saying it is a good thing, not something to lament. I'm saying diversity is the Melting Pot, and I, for one, am very glad we have it.
-
Please define your use of the term diversity.
Variety, differing from one another, having differing characteristics, heterogeneity.
Are you saying hyphenated status is more important that national status?
irish- american takes precedence over american?
No. I'm saying Irish-Americans are no more or no less American than German-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, whatever. And vice versa, if you catch my drift. I'm saying people like Mr. Pournelle, who certainly appear to object to diversity, are wrong to do so. I'm saying there never was a time when immigrants all came here to assimilate and be American and speak nothing but English. I'm saying that I don't consider people who come here to live and work and play to be un-American if they don't learn English. I'm saying that American culture is what it is because people from other places came here, bringing their cultures and languages and foods and ideas with them. I'm saying the diversity of our people, the heterogeneity of our society is our society, and our culture, and our strength. I'm saying it is a good thing, not something to lament. I'm saying diversity is the Melting Pot, and I, for one, am very glad we have it.
I do't think that Diversity was one of the origional aims of our Nations founding , but it has been a good trend to gradually spread the franchise .
How would you describe our national identity.
-
And vice versa, if you catch my drift.
Actually i don't.
Am I an American or a German-Irish-American?
Which is the set and which is the subset?
-
Am I an American or a German-Irish-American?
Yes.
Which is the set and which is the subset?
Oh come on. You know the answer to that.
And vice versa, if you catch my drift.
Actually i don't.
You're not dense. Don't give me that. No subset is more or less American than any other. Am I not communicating plainly? Am I using esoteric phrases or obfuscatory language? I don't believe I am. How can there be this much confusion over what I'm saying? I spelled it out for you. In English. No foreign words. No complicated phrasing. Just straightforward and direct. How hard can understanding it be?
-
I do't think that Diversity was one of the origional aims of our Nations founding , but it has been a good trend to gradually spread the franchise .
Not one of the aims of the immigrants and descendants of immigrants who came here from somewhere else? Possibly not. But then it didn't need to be.
How would you describe our national identity.
Diverse. New York has a different culture than New Orleans. New Orleans has a different culture than San Fransisco. San Fransisco has a different culture than Denver. Denver has a different culture than Anchorage. Anchorage has a different culture than Dallas. No, they are probably not wildly different, but different enough to be called diverse. The population of the U.S. is diverse. The religions are diverse. The colors are diverse. The foods are diverse. The clothes are diverse. Out of many, one. I like it that way, and I confess I don't understand why some people have a problem with it.
-
Am I an American or a German-Irish-American?
Yes.
Which is the set and which is the subset?
Oh come on. You know the answer to that.
And vice versa, if you catch my drift.
Actually i don't.
You're not dense. Don't give me that. No subset is more or less American than any other. Am I not communicating plainly? Am I using esoteric phrases or obfuscatory language? I don't believe I am. How can there be this much confusion over what I'm saying? I spelled it out for you. In English. No foreign words. No complicated phrasing. Just straightforward and direct. How hard can understanding it be?
If you refuse to answer the questions, just say so. That would probably save us both a lot of time.
I don't really see what is so difficult about the questions, they are pretty straight forward.
I am not ranking subsets, i am asking if they are in fact subsets or are they in fact sets.
-
If you refuse to answer the questions, just say so. That would probably save us both a lot of time.
I don't really see what is so difficult about the questions, they are pretty straight forward.
I am not ranking subsets, i am asking if they are in fact subsets or are they in fact sets.
Sweet jelly beans! Are you kidding me? No, you're probably not.
Am I not communicating plainly? Am I using esoteric phrases or obfuscatory language? I don't believe I am. How can there be this much confusion over what I'm saying? I spelled it out for you once already. In English. No foreign words. No complicated phrasing. Just straightforward and direct. How hard can understanding it be?
Pooh yi. Okay. Let's walk you through this like you're a child since that is the way you want to be treated.
Am I an American or a German-Irish-American?
Yes. As as in yes to both. You see, I think you can be both without contradiction. And by that I mean, of course, there is no reason you cannot be both. A contradiction would be like saying something is both an apple and a dog. An apple and a dog are two very different things. An apple is a fruit and a dog is an animal. On the other hand, if I said something was both a dog and an Irish Setter, that wouldn't be a contradiction, because an Irish Setter is a kind of a dog. And if I said something was both an apple and a Golden Delicious apple, that wouldn't be a contradiction because a Golden Delicious is a kind of apple. So you can be both an American and a German-Irish-American because a German-Irish-American is a kind of an American. No, no, now I'm not saying it's a breed. Don't be silly. It's just in the matter of language, you know, how we describe things. Some people have Japanese ancestors (ancestors being like parents or grand parents or great-grand parents and so on) and some might call them Japanese-Americans. Some people have Italian ancestors, and some might call them Italian-American. Some have German and Irish ancestors, and some might call them German-Irish-Americans. It's just a kind of a name to show one's ancestry.
And for the record, I don't really care if you want to be called just American or just German-Irish-American or both. Makes no difference to me.
Which is the set and which is the subset?
Oh come on. You know the answer to that. As in, I figured you were educated enough to know out of American and German-Irish-American which would be the set and the subset. Apparently not. Pay attention now. The group of American people has a lot more people in it than just German-Irish-Americans. Remember how we were talking before about Japanese-Americans and Italian-Americans? Well, there are lot of those kinds of groups, and they're all Americans. German-Irish-Americans are a smaller part of that larger group we call Americans. Generally a subset is a set that is part of a larger set. Now, think about this a moment, which group, American or German-Irish-American is the larger set of the two? That's right, American is the larger set. And does German-Irish-American fit within that larger set? Think about it for just a little bit. Yes, yes it does. So which one is the set and which one is the subset? Come on, now, think about it. American is the larger set and German-Irish-American is a smaller set within the larger set. So German-Irish-American would be the... subset.
Okay, lessons are over for for right now. If you're still confused, feel free to come back later and ask more questions, and I'll conde... I mean, I'll explain the answers to you as best I can. Run along now. Teacher has a headache.
-
here`s the thing about diversity.
it makes things interesting
do people in ireland vacation within thier country?
san francisco is a crazy non-logic thinking bottle city(kandor)
but it still the primo vacation spot for U.S. for that very reason
-
I see no reason for insults, but if it helps with your self esteem issues it is ok with me.
When i was travelling through Europe in the early seventies, people would come up to me and ask if i was American.
Should i have been insulted that they didn't identify me as a German-Irish-American or should i have been satisfied that that they got the main group right?
-
I see no reason for insults, but if it helps with your self esteem issues it is ok with me.
When i was travelling through Europe in the early seventies, people would come up to me and ask if i was American.
Should i have been insulted that they didn't identify me as a German-Irish-American or should i have been satisfied that that they got the main group right?
Why does it matter?
If someone sees himself or herself as being Jewish before being an American, then who are you to tell that person that they are wrong? If someone sees himself or herself as being working class before being an American, or being a Greek or Italian-American, what does that matter to you?
Last I checked there is no law that says we have one national identity and everyone must follow it.
The United States has extremely varied cultures. I really don't understand your argument here.
-
To advance JS's point a little, I would here introduce the concept of fluidity, or shifting emphases as to identity.
-
Who says i am arguing anything.
I have never said one hyphenated group was better than another.
I have never said diversity was bad.
I am simply looking for clarification.
I am not a big fan of balkanization.
I think consensus for the group can derive from debate and compromise from all subgroups with a stake.
So yes i think a liberal-american can work with a conservative- american. Yes i thing a NE-Republican can work with a Southern- Republican. I think a bluedog -democrat can work with a dean-democrat as well as a southern- Republican.
Perhaps my question is better phrased by asking if the best outcome of the whole supercedes the best interest of the subgroup.
And yes i think it matters simply because it lays out the ground rules for doing business.
If you disagree with that, tell me why.
-
I see no reason for insults,
Then stop insulting me with questions like this:
Should i have been insulted that they didn't identify me as a German-Irish-American or should i have been satisfied that that they got the main group right?
Should you have been insulted that they didn't identify something they probably couldn't know? Wow, what an insightful and probing question delving right to the heart... no, no, it's not. That is a really dumb question. What part of "And for the record, I don't really care if you want to be called just American or just German-Irish-American or both," did you not understand?
-
How are you insulted by my questions?
Are they beneath you?
-
I do't think that Diversity was one of the origional aims of our Nations founding , but it has been a good trend to gradually spread the franchise .
Not one of the aims of the immigrants and descendants of immigrants who came here from somewhere else? Possibly not. But then it didn't need to be.
How would you describe our national identity.
Diverse. New York has a different culture than New Orleans. New Orleans has a different culture than San Fransisco. San Fransisco has a different culture than Denver. Denver has a different culture than Anchorage. Anchorage has a different culture than Dallas. No, they are probably not wildly different, but different enough to be called diverse. The population of the U.S. is diverse. The religions are diverse. The colors are diverse. The foods are diverse. The clothes are diverse. Out of many, one. I like it that way, and I confess I don't understand why some people have a problem with it.
Is there an American national identity?
Is there a reason for us to cohere?
-
Perhaps my question is better phrased by asking if the best outcome of the whole supercedes the best interest of the subgroup.
And yes i think it matters simply because it lays out the ground rules for doing business.
If you disagree with that, tell me why.
Why would the best outcome of the whole not be the best interest of the subgroup? For someone who can ask a lot of ridiculous questions hunting for clarification of straightforward comments, you sure do make some vague statements. In any case, we've gotten back to diversity as divisions, which is what I said was wrong in the first place. You've now placed the subgroup (singular) against the whole and said it matters "because it lays out the ground rules for doing business." Why we need these divisions for business is not clear, neither is why the subgroup's interests must be at odds with the interests of the whole such that we need to decide whether the interests of the whole supersedes that of the subgroup. If what you want is clarification I suggest you should start by clarifying your own post first.
-
If diversity is not about divisions, then why the need for labeling the various subgroups.
Or are you saying the needs and focus of urban-Americans is not different than that of rural-americans. Are they not both fighting over a slice of the american pie?
-
Perhaps my question is better phrased by asking if the best outcome of the whole supercedes the best interest of the subgroup.
And yes i think it matters simply because it lays out the ground rules for doing business.
If you disagree with that, tell me why.
Why would the best outcome of the whole not be the best interest of the subgroup? For someone who can ask a lot of ridiculous questions hunting for clarification of straightforward comments, you sure do make some vague statements. In any case, we've gotten back to diversity as divisions, which is what I said was wrong in the first place. You've now placed the subgroup (singular) against the whole and said it matters "because it lays out the ground rules for doing business." Why we need these divisions for business is not clear, neither is why the subgroup's interests must be at odds with the interests of the whole such that we need to decide whether the interests of the whole supersedes that of the subgroup. If what you want is clarification I suggest you should start by clarifying your own post first.
Quite often one subgroup seeks advantage over the rest or some other subgroup , this depends on how these "groups " are defined and organised , it isn't possible to gurantee all groups equal strength .
-
How are you insulted by my questions?
Are they beneath you?
Oh come on. "Am I an American or a German-Irish-American?" You don't know the answer to that? "Which is the set and which is the subset?" You don't know the answer to that? Do you really need me to answer those questions to understand my position when I've already explained it, and a couple times at least, in plain language? The questions are insulting because apparently either you think I don't know what I'm talking about or you're not paying attention to anything I say. And when you pull that kind of crap with me, 9 times out of 10, I'm going to throw it back at you. So if you want to play dumb and ask me questions about whether you should have been offended by people not identifying something I've already said I don't care about, I certainly can't stop you, but don't be surprised if I don't act pleased.
-
If diversity is not about divisions, then why the need for labeling the various subgroups.
Or are you saying the needs and focus of urban-Americans is not different than that of rural-americans. Are they not both fighting over a slice of the american pie?
Nobody calls Adam "unkle" the "group" that matters most is Humanity.
But there is no potential for organiseing all of humanity is there?
The various tribes and clans must deal with each other.
I would like to define an American Identity as a brotherhood with open enrollment but some requirements.
-
How are you insulted by my questions?
Are they beneath you?
Oh come on. "Am I an American or a German-Irish-American?" You don't know the answer to that? "Which is the set and which is the subset?" You don't know the answer to that? Do you really need me to answer those questions to understand my position when I've already explained it, and a couple times at least, in plain language? The questions are insulting because apparently either you think I don't know what I'm talking about or you're not paying attention to anything I say. And when you pull that kind of crap with me, 9 times out of 10, I'm going to throw it back at you. So if you want to play dumb and ask me questions about whether you should have been offended by people not identifying something I've already said I don't care about, I certainly can't stop you, but don't be surprised if I don't act pleased.
I think he has a second step in mind that depends on narrowing the definition.
Can we divide our Citizens into two groups , those who take citizenship seriously and those who don't?
Can those who don't be further devided into those who care more for some other part of their identity and those who are apathetic?
Should we really have equal voteing rights for those of us who who do our homework as those who don't?
-
would like to define an American Identity as a brotherhood with open enrollment but some requirements.
I have no problem with that definition though it does imply threat the confederation is supreme to the tribes otherwise it would not be able to impose requirements.
.
-
I think he has a second step in mind that depends on narrowing the definition.
More likely i am observing a leaf float down a stream with no idea where it will go.
I am not debating, nor am i arguing, i am simply trying to discuss.
-
I think he has a second step in mind that depends on narrowing the definition.
More likely i am observing a leaf float down a stream with no idea where it will go.
I am not debating, nor am i arguing, i am simply trying to discuss.
Then I guessed wrong , what is the lacking part now?
-
PRINT WINDOW CLOSE WINDOW
WONDER LAND
The Death of Diversity
People in ethnically diverse settings don't care about each other.
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Diversity was once just another word. Now it's a fighting word. One of the biggest problems with diversity is that it won't let you alone. Corporations everywhere have force-marched middle managers into training sessions led by "diversity trainers." Most people already knew that the basic idea beneath diversity emerged about 2,000 years ago under two rubrics: Love thy neighbor as thyself, and Do unto others as they would do unto you. Then suddenly this got rewritten as "appreciating differentness."
George Bernard Shaw is said to have demurred from the Golden Rule. "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you," Shaw advised. "Their tastes may not be the same." No such voluntary opt-out is permissible in our time. The parsons of the press made diversity into a secular commandment; do a word-search of "diversity" in a broad database of newspapers and it might come up 250 million times. In the Supreme Court term just ended, the Seattle schools integration case led most of the justices into arcane discussions of diversity's legal compulsions. More recently it emerged that the University of Michigan, a virtual Mecca of diversity, announced it would install Muslim footbaths in bathrooms, causing a fight.
Now comes word that diversity as an ideology may be dead, or not worth saving. Robert Putnam, the Harvard don who in the controversial bestseller "Bowling Alone" announced the decline of communal-mindedness amid the rise of home-alone couch potatoes, has completed a mammoth study of the effects of ethnic diversity on communities. His researchers did 30,000 interviews in 41 U.S. communities. Short version: People in ethnically diverse settings don't want to have much of anything to do with each other. "Social capital" erodes. Diversity has a downside.
Prof. Putnam isn't exactly hiding these volatile conclusions, though he did introduce them in a journal called Scandinavian Political Studies. A great believer in the efficacy of what social scientists call "reciprocity," he wasn't happy with what he found but didn't mince words describing the results:
"Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television." The diversity nightmare gets worse: They have little confidence in the "local news media." This after all we've done for them.
Colleagues and diversity advocates, disturbed at what was emerging from the study, suggested alternative explanations. Prof. Putnam and his team re-ran the data every which way from Sunday and the result was always the same: Diverse communities may be yeasty and even creative, but trust, altruism and community cooperation fall. He calls it "hunkering down."
Give me a break! you scream. What about New York City or L.A.? From the time of Sherwood Anderson's "Winesburg, Ohio" through "Peyton Place" and beyond, people have fled the flat-lined, gossip-driven homogeneity of small American "communities" for the welcome anonymity of big-city apartment building--so long as your name wasn't Kitty Genovese, the famous New York woman who bled to death crying for help.
It's a wonderfully thought-provoking study, suitable for arguing the length of a long August weekend and available as a lecture on Prof. Putnam's Harvard Web site, the "Saguaro Seminar." Astute readers, however, have already guessed who's thrilled with the results.
Pat Buchanan, reflecting an array of commentaries on the study from the American right, says, "Putnam provides supporting fire from Harvard Yard for those who say America needs a time-out from mass immigration, be it legal or illegal." The "antis" believe the Putnam study hammers the final intellectual nail in the coffin of immigration and diversity.
The diversity ideologues deserve whatever ill tidings they get. They're the ones who weren't willing to persuade the public of diversity's merits, preferring to turn "diversity" into a political and legal hammer to compel compliance. The conversions were forced conversions. As always, with politics comes pushback. And it never stops.
The harvest of bitter fruit from the diversity wars begun three decades ago across campuses, corporations and newsrooms has made the immigration debate significantly worse. Diversity's advocates gave short shrift to assimilation, indeed arguing that assimilation into the American mainstream was oppressive and coercive. So they demoted assimilation and elevated "differences." Then they took the nation to court. Little wonder the immigration debate is riven with distrust.
The diversity ideologues ruined a good word and, properly understood, a decent notion. What's needed now is for a younger black, brown or polka-dot writer to recast the idea in a way that restores the worth and utility of assimilation. Somebody had better do it soon; the first chart offered in the Putnam study depicts inexorably rising rates of immigration in many nations. The idea that the U.S. can wave into effect a 10-year "time out" on immigration flows is as likely as King Canute commanding the tides to recede.
Here, too, Robert Putnam has a possible assimilation model. Hold onto your hat. It's Christian evangelical megachurches. "In many large evangelical congregations," he writes, "the participants constituted the largest thoroughly integrated gatherings we have ever witnessed." This, too, is an inconvenient truth. They do it with low entry barriers to the church and by offering lots of little groups to join inside the larger "shared identity" of the church. A Harvard prof finds good in evangelical megachurches. Send this man a suit of body armor!
My own model for the way forward in a 21st century American society of unavoidable ethnic multitudes is an old one, a phrase found nowhere in the Putnam study or any commentary on it: the middle class. Its assimilating virtues may be boring, but it works, if you work at getting into it.
Of course Hillary Clinton believes this can't happen here because the middle class has been "invisible" to George Bush. As with diversity, progress is always just beyond the horizon.
Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Thursdays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
Copyright ? 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110010477
-
Then I guessed wrong , what is the lacking part now?
Willingness. Apparently discussion is rare to this board after all these years.
-
If diversity is not about divisions, then why the need for labeling the various subgroups.
I don't know. I didn't bring up the labeling. You're the one who has placed so much emphasis on whether you're American or German-Irish-American, so why don't you tell me why you're so damn hung up on labels?
Or are you saying the needs and focus of urban-Americans is not different than that of rural-americans. Are they not both fighting over a slice of the american pie?
Are they fighting? Are "urban-Americans" fighting against "rural-Americans"? Is there a zero-sum "american pie" where if one group gets a bigger piece then some other group must have a smaller one? Why don't you explain your opinion of this matter rather than asking a lot of judgmental questions?
-
Then I guessed wrong , what is the lacking part now?
Willingness. Apparently discussion is rare to this board after all these years.
I disagree UP is generous with his thoughts , but he resists giveing them up on any but his own terms.
-
I am not debating, nor am i arguing, i am simply trying to discuss.
The frak you are.
-
[
Are they fighting? Are "urban-Americans" fighting against "rural-Americans"? Is there a zero-sum "american pie" where if one group gets a bigger piece then some other group must have a smaller one? Why don't you explain your opinion of this matter rather than asking a lot of judgmental questions?
Yes indeed , get a map of the election results for the last few elections broken down by county or district.
It is easy to note that Urban America is voteing very blue and rural America is voteing very red, this is the sharpest deliniation that we have between groups that split us so nearly evenly in half.
Urban people want to run an urbane government , this includes a set of ideas unpopular with people who are closer to the land .
-
Willingness. Apparently discussion is rare to this board after all these years.
I explained my position. I did it at least twice. Obviously I'm more than willing to discuss. Judgmental questions apparently intended to show that I'm ignorant with no idea where to go is not discussion.
-
I disagree UP is generous with his thoughts , but he resists giveing them up on any but his own terms.
Resist giving them up? Wha? I explain myself time after time after time after time, willingly and freely and repeatedly. And apparently I do such a great job of that no one can remember what I say or that I say it. Wow.
-
Can we divide our Citizens into two groups , those who take citizenship seriously and those who don't?
Seriously according to whom?
Can those who don't be further devided into those who care more for some other part of their identity and those who are apathetic?
Sure. You can force divisions on other people to your heart's content, but is that a benefit or a harm? I think it's a harm.
-
I disagree UP is generous with his thoughts , but he resists giveing them up on any but his own terms.
Resist giving them up? Wha? I explain myself time after time after time after time, willingly and freely and repeatedly. And apparently I do such a great job of that no one can remember what I say or that I say it. Wow.
I feel your pain , in this instance my first eight words were ignored and my second clause given wrong interpretation.
frustrateing?
I understand.
-
Can we divide our Citizens into two groups , those who take citizenship seriously and those who don't?
Seriously according to whom?
Can those who don't be further devided into those who care more for some other part of their identity and those who are apathetic?
Sure. You can force divisions on other people to your heart's content, but is that a benefit or a harm? I think it's a harm.
Force division or find it?
Is there no natural division like these already existing , before I notice it??
-
People in ethnically diverse settings don't care about each other.
What a load of nonsense.
-
Yes indeed , get a map of the election results for the last few elections broken down by county or district.
So political disagreement equals fighting?
-
I feel your pain , in this instance my first eight words were ignored and my second clause given wrong interpretation.
Then pretend you're me, and explain yourself.
-
Yes indeed , get a map of the election results for the last few elections broken down by county or district.
So political disagreement equals fighting?
It is a contest.
-
Force division or find it?
Depends on what you mean by find. Some people thought the inferiority of blacks was self-evident. Some moron or other even funded some institution to find the scientific proof of it. Are you finding as in discovering, or are you merely finding exactly what you have already decided to find?
Is there no natural division like these already existing , before I notice it??
Possibly, but again, I have to go back to the question, serious according to whom?
-
I feel your pain , in this instance my first eight words were ignored and my second clause given wrong interpretation.
Then pretend you're me, and explain yourself.
You are participateing volentarily , I consider you to be generous , in that you expound on your thinking in a real effort to make it clear.
You have a right to call a halt to further clarifacation at any time , this is a volentary effort you are already generous with.
Thought is one of Mankinds cheif advantages over nature ,valuable stuff, I am very happy that you are not stingy with yours.
-
Plane: http://www.maconbaseball.com/. Tonight.
-
It is a contest.
Not every contest is a fight.
-
You are participateing volentarily , I consider you to be generous , in that you expound on your thinking in a real effort to make it clear.
Okay. Thank you. I apologize for misunderstanding.
You have a right to call a halt to further clarifacation at any time , this is a volentary effort you are already generous with.
I am very seriously considering that option.
-
Force division or find it?
Depends on what you mean by find. Some people thought the inferiority of blacks was self-evident. Some moron or other even funded some institution to find the scientific proof of it. Are you finding as in discovering, or are you merely finding exactly what you have already decided to find?
Is there no natural division like these already existing , before I notice it??
Possibly, but again, I have to go back to the question, serious according to whom?
I think that the inferiority of races has been studyed to the point that its disproof is plentyfull.
That there is a conflict now between urban , suburban and rural Americans can be supported with availible data that seems to reveil a truth , the reasons for this conflict seem worthy of discussion to me.
One of the issues is taxation , Citys tend to adzorb a greater share of tax spending than rural areas so it seems natural that higher taxes have more freinds in the city.
-
You are participateing volentarily , I consider you to be generous , in that you expound on your thinking in a real effort to make it clear.
Okay. Thank you. I apologize for misunderstanding.
You have a right to call a halt to further clarifacation at any time , this is a volentary effort you are already generous with.
I am very seriously considering that option.
I thought you had already invoked that option?
-
Plane: http://www.maconbaseball.com/. Tonight.
I hope you see a good game!
-
I am not debating, nor am i arguing, i am simply trying to discuss.
The frak you are.
Your perception is not necessarily reality. Nor are my questions judgmental. I don't have a clue where you came up with that.
-
Your perception is not necessarily reality.
I might be more convinced you are attempting to discuss if you were to, oh, say, explain your own position.
Nor are my questions judgmental. I don't have a clue where you came up with that.
Perhaps I was wrong on that, though I get a definite sense of you approaching the exchange from a position that I don't know what I'm talking about. Like when you say things such as, "Or are you saying the needs and focus of urban-Americans is not different than that of rural-americans." As if some how that I claim diversity is not division means that I think everyone has the same needs and the same general focus. You might as well be saying that I think 'different' means 'similar'. Of course I don't mean that. Who would? Granted, I am no genius, not a professional political analyst, and haven't memorized the dictionary, but you might give me some credit for knowing the meaning of the words I use. That is, if you really want to discuss this topic.
I don't mind questions. I don't mind questions for clarification or challenging questions. What I mind are questions that are seem to be intended to imply that I mean something I did not say or that I mean something obviously ignorant, like that "the needs and focus of urban-Americans is not different than that of rural-americans." I'm not sure why you would think someone would not find that kind of question judgmental. Judgmental questions may have a place, but you're seem to lay them on thick for a guy who is neither debating nor arguing, and simply trying to discuss.
-
That there is a conflict now between urban , suburban and rural Americans can be supported with availible data that seems to reveil a truth , the reasons for this conflict seem worthy of discussion to me.\
What is the data?
-
That there is a conflict now between urban , suburban and rural Americans can be supported with availible data that seems to reveil a truth , the reasons for this conflict seem worthy of discussion to me.\
What is the data?
I may be possible to create a formula that accurately predicts how likely you are to vote Republican or Democrat useing very few parimeters of measurement and the greatest factor that is evident, is distance between neighbors.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/1204/ijse/wolfe.htm
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statecartredblueakhi.png)
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredblue.png)
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinear.png)
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png)
-
Okay, so now you've proven that lots of people vote either Democratic or Republican, and you've posted a link to an article that seems to basically say that even with all the diversity in the U.S., E Pluribus Unum still applies, which is also basically what I said. (Though the author of the article and I got there by, I think, somewhat different routes.) So now what?