Well, you’d have to put a gun to my head to make me listen to K-Pop, so there’s that.
The claim was “foreign-born” not minority i.e. a higher percentage of first-generation immigrants. Which is practically a given in low-population countries compared to high-population ones. And I’m sure the relatively recent open borders within the EU have nothing to do with the current stat. :rolleyes:
Isnt it true though that a population with less racial diversity is less affected by racism? They may be latent racists but if they never really have exposure to those of a different skin color then their racism is never made manifest. Sure, the U.S. can absolutely lessen the racism and xenophobia within its borders. However its a level and scale of work that a more homogenous simply wouldnt need to undertake to achieve similar results. I actually think this applies to racism and its societal destruction but not to xenophobia. I could easily see a more homogenous society being more susceptible to xenophobic than a more diverse society.
I ask this out of ignorance, not a desire to challenge but what are some relatively modern examples of a culture murdering it’s way to homogeneity? . i dont doubt that its been attempted, this seems like an awfully ineffective method to me. Seems to me it would be more likely to result in a permanent minority or second-class population within a society. That is, unless you murdered these different populations to utter extinction. But i really dont know, which is why i ask.
Its a shame that this post came from the poster that it did. Because certain posters have poisoned themselves (fairly or not) on this messageboard and any posts they subsequently make are prejudicially cast aside without being judged on their merits.
I think this is an excellent post and one of the first ive seen backed up with cites. Unfortunately it will be marginalized and mischaracterized as “racist”. I for one appreciate this contribution even if I have never agreed with a prior word this poster has posted.
Not sure why this would be the case – in my experience, the more exposure one has to racial and ethnic diversity, the less one is likely to be racist. Folks who’ve never met a black person are a lot more likely to have racist (and baseless, obviously) ideas about black people than someone who has been around tons and tons in professional, social, casual, academic, etc., settings.
This is a nuanced and thoughtful take, while what was described in the OP struck me as much more simplistic and lacking in nuance and thus falling into the trap of the kind of basic ignorance made by racists in their dumbass arguments.
I think such nuance and context is especially necessary in issues relating to these kind of fraught topics, since ignorance and bigotry have been such powerful and ubiquitous drivers of the discourse through history.
Right. That’s what i was getting at with my use of the term “latent racism”. A person who has never been exposed to or interacted with a black person might harbor racist beliefs about black people but if that racist person lives in a homogenous society in which no black people live, to what degree will that racism adversely affect that society?
I see what you mean, at least hypothetically – but there are very, very few societies with zero diversity. Rather, we’re comparing societies with significant levels of diversity which might vary from the single digits to close to 40-50%. Which is worse, for the society in question – X% of the majority being racist against the minority when the majority is 90%, or X% of the majority being racist against the minority when the majority is 55%? I don’t think it’s clear that one or the other is better or worse. I don’t think we can sum up this kind of thing with anything close to a sweeping conclusion that one or the other is better or worse.
I dont think you (general you) can categorically say one is “better” for a society than the other. However, specific areas such as social policies that take care of those without current means to care for themselves (safety nets) are more easily sold to the taxpaying populace if that populace can more easily relate on a tribal level to those that would be receiving the benefits of that social safety net. That wouldnt mean that members of say that 10% minority wouldn’t reap those benefits as well, they would. They would be beneficiaries of the fact that far and away the most visible and largest segment of those receiving social welfare were relatable to those paying for it.
FWIW, what he said is what I was trying to get at, but I may not have stated it so well, in an effort to boil it down to the essentials that Corry El gets at in his third paragraph.
But that was taken as me saying “if not for all those minorities, the US would be like Norway”, which wasn’t at all what I was getting at.
That notion is clearly wrong as proven by the Rwandan Genocide, the Bosnian War or any of the myriad conflicts that have arisen between different ethnic groups forced to live together as a result of colonial powers arbitrarily drawing lines across maps, to say nothing of the long, sordid history of antisemitic pogroms targeting local Jewish populations with roots going back centuries into their community’s past.
Nazi Germany; the killing fields of Cambodia; the Cultural Revolution of China. These are the first three I think of, but you can also look at the genocide in Rwanda, the massacre of Muslims in Serbia, and the killing of the Yazidi by ISIS.
Hope that helps!
The Inquisition nearly wiped out Judaism in Spain
But did these genocides succeed in creating truly homogenous, working societies? Serbia seems like the only contender in that regard (that may be simply because i am least informed of their history). China’s cultural revolution was absolutely not an example of a society murdering its way to homogeneity. It was more like a mixture of murder, persecution, propaganda and societal destruction that resulted in the most chaotic and least-functioning state the country had ever found itself in.
And how successful was the Nazi state after the holocaust? Yeah they committed genocide in an attempt to purify their state of jews but did it work? Did they ever exist as a Nazi State?
All your examples are what i would refer to as attempted societal homogenization. But they uniformly seem like disastrous failures.
“Two” is not a very diverse number of ethnicities. Your examples are of two ethnicities, actually very similar except for a religion or a subsistence method, not the multicultural diversity iiandyiiii seemed to be talking about (although he can correct me if I’m wrong)
To wit, the most intense “build the wall!” sentiments are in communities nowhere near the border.
Back in the day, Oregon made it illegal for black people to reside there. Despite having a tiny black population.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
You’re correct about my posts. Thanks.
But that is because in both of these instances, the racism and xenophobia happens in a smaller subsection of a larger state (the U.S.) that is much more diverse and these smaller more homogenous states dont want this diversity to encroach on their lives. In the case of the “build the wall” people, a large degree of their xenophobia is stoked and incited by propaganda created and disseminated by powerful people and organizations who have a political agenda in keeping those people angry and afraid.
I think that’s something different than mere racism vs. Hispanics, as most of the border areas are heavily Hispanic anyway. I think what we see with border communities being for walls and heavier enforcement has to do with the direct effects of illegal immigration on their communities, but the support for the same walls in say… Kentucky is more because of racism, or a perception that immigrants steal jobs or something.
Addressing the implementation of things by State, I agree whole heartedly (as do most conservatives). Where we likely disagree is if you wanted to the Fed to be controlling the State’s willingness or direction it chose to go.
Cite for border communities that are for the wall? My understanding is that the people actually near the border are against it because they know how stupid and pointless it would be. I was under the impression that most of the “build the wall” sentiment is from places nowhere near the actual border.