Professor Putnam's research on diversity is having an effect. In the past few days there's been another round of discussion on his research, with some former supporters of open borders now having second thoughts.
I've already written a number of posts on Putnam, so rather than repeating myself I'll just give the following links:
Professor Putnam: hunkering after diversity
This post presents Professor Putnam's research results which show that diversity encourages social withdrawal. A higher level of diversity decreases solidarity, happiness, friendship and trust.
What really drives Putnam?
Here I look at the arguments put forward by Professor Putnam for continuing to embrace diversity despite its negative effects on social capital.
Professor Putnam's challenge
Professor Putnam ends his research paper with a (convoluted) attempt to explain how diversity might be maintained without the damage to social capital.
The human race has quite clearly evolved with a survivalist mechanism which clearly defines the enemy as being those who are not a part of a given social group. This is a necessary trait to have in order to survive in a 'kill or be killed' world where the needs of the tribe are priority number 1.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is any doubt that this evolutionary trait has strong residues. We can see it in basic individual psychology, and on a population scale also. The point is this; we are still evolving. Whether you're a creationist or darwinist, this is simple fact. The human race is continually adapting to social and environmental changes. So while there may be teething problems that occur when we try and counter 'tribal' urges, in the long term it may be exactly what is needed to ensure survival.
yeah, graham, or "dversity" may result in massive genocide in formerly wealthy and peaceful and stable countries like the US, Australia and Great Britain. I'd rather not take the chance, and am rather chuffed at folks like you who apparently want to gamble the question.
ReplyDeletePS -- Yugoslavia was a bit more than "teething problems."
So while there may be teething problems that occur when we try and counter 'tribal' urges, in the long term it may be exactly what is needed to ensure survival.
ReplyDeleteGraham, a couple of points.
First, Professor Putnam would never accept your argument. Putnam thinks that diversity is a good thing and he therefore wants people to retain particular ethnic identities at a personal level whilst adopting new overarching identities at a public level.
The implication of your argument, in contrast, is that diversity is a bad, regressive thing and must give way to a single human identity.
Second, it seems odd to argue for open borders as a survival technique, when it requires us to go against our instincts for group survival.
If Europeans are accepting their own loss of group existence it is partly because they have reached a point of nihilism in which they no longer care for the survival of humanity either.
I've lost count of the number of comments I've read on the web in which Westerners say they wouldn't care if humanity died out (because of our impact on the environment or because of a failure to achieve true equality etc.)
The healthy instinct is to care for humanity and to believe that your own ethny has a positive contribution to make to the future of humanity - so that its loss would be a grave loss to humanity.
It's also healthy to admire humanity in all its facets: in all the expressions of national or tribal culture that we find on the planet.
I don't see why we can't retain this wealth of distinct culture whilst still working toward the survival of humanity as a whole.
That was a much better response than my sarcastic rejoinder Mark. I think it was the "teething problems" comment that really set me off.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to why my follow up reply I posted the other day hasn't shown up? Was this a technical problem or was the reply rejected for some reason?
ReplyDeleteLooks like a technical problem.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe diversity is bad or regressive and I’m more in line with Putnam on the issue than you give me credit for.
I’m not suggesting it give way to a ‘single human identity’. People should be free to retain their culture – ethnic or whatever – and there should be laws in every society that retain this as a right, while still maintaining individual liberty. What I’m suggesting is that exposing people to other cultures will eventually lead to greater tolerance of them. Segregation will simply reinforce the tribalistic “us and them” mentality. We only have to look around at the wars that are being fought today. In most cases diversity isn’t the cause of them, a lack of tolerance for that diversity is. Separation doesn’t encourage an evolution of human psychology towards a more tolerant nature, it encourages exactly the opposite – separation. So while at this point in time we are struggling to overcome a group mentality that defines the enemy as those who are not of our own cultural background, in the long term it may lead to greater acceptance of all diversity. No one needs to relinquish their cultural heritage. People are free to it.
Susan you’re looking at this from a short term perspective. What needs to be remembered is that this ‘tribal’ mentality is ingrained in humankind over thousands of years (if not longer, depending on your position). It has been integral to survival throughout our history. What I’m saying is that the opposite may now need to be the case. Playing TO that mentality won’t help us move forward from it, it will just reinforce it.
Graham, your earlier comment must have fallen to some technical glitch. I'm always happy to post genuine, respectful arguments such as the ones you've made.
ReplyDeleteI want to respond to this comment of yours:
Segregation will simply reinforce the tribalistic “us and them” mentality.
First, if the cultures don't segregate at some level they won't survive. You can't reproduce a traditional ethnic culture in a mixed ethnic suburb.
If the aim really were to promote tolerance through exposure to other cultures, this could have been done without open borders. In a world of modern communications, we could have used films, books, music, travel and so on to promote such exposure.
Second, I grew up in a relatively "segregated" community. The eastern suburbs of Melbourne in the 1970s were not exactly diverse - certainly not by today's standards.
Yet, I don't remember a hostile us and them attitude. I do recall a friendly rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney, and another friendly sporting rivalry with England.
The truth, I think, is that we were too absorbed in our own culture to care about any hatreds toward far distant peoples.
If your mind is turned toward local loves and attachments and toward your own tradition (with perhaps some feeling of connection to other Anglophone nations too), then there is no festering ill-will toward an "other".
Nor do I recall anything resembling a militaristic attitude. There was some pride in the military record of Australian men (and in their pioneering achievements and sporting prowess) and there was a moment of sombre rembembrance on Anzac Day, but there was no thirst to attack any other country or people.
In other words, I don't believe that the Australian culture of the 1970s was a danger to anyone's survival.
Susan you’re looking at this from a short term perspective. What needs to be remembered is that this ‘tribal’ mentality is ingrained in humankind over thousands of years (if not longer, depending on your position). It has been integral to survival throughout our history. What I’m saying is that the opposite may now need to be the case. Playing TO that mentality won’t help us move forward from it, it will just reinforce it.
ReplyDeleteYou're still willing to gamble with millions of lives in order to achieve a "theory" you hope will work out -- with not even a sou's worth of evidence that it would work out, and massive amounts of evidence that it won't. That's not only stupid, it's plain evil. Obviously you don't think of yourself as evil but you are every bit as evil as Mao or Pol Pot, who also thought they could "remake" human nature and "create" a new utopia -- all it took were some "teething problems" that cost 60 or 70 million lives. And they still didn't get their "remade" human man out of it anyways.
As for the concept of "tolerance" for "diversity" -- that is what has gotten the West in so much trouble as it is now. We can't "tolerate" cultures -- such as Islam -- that are antithetical to our own.
I live in California, the most "diverse" state in the US where every ethnic group is a minority, including mine. All that "tolerance" for "diversity" has achieved is to weaken the former dominant Anglo culture here, so that it can be replaced by another mono-culture -- that of Mexico. And the Mexican monoculture that is replacing mine is not nearly as successful -- by almost all measures -- as the former one was.
"Diversity" never lasts. It just leads to monoculture in the end.
People should be free to retain their culture – ethnic or whatever – and there should be laws in every society that retain this as a right, while still maintaining individual liberty.
ReplyDeletegraham, This is yet another unworkable, multi-culti fantasy. What if an important part of one's culture is oppressing other peoples' culture, as in Islam where a whole host of religious beliefs (such as banning alcohol, pigs and dogs) impinges on other peoples' cultural freedom? Moreover don't the natives of a culture have the right to remain what they are? Doesn't Australia have a right to be a culture in and of itself, not just a blank canvas for every Tom, Dick and Abdullah who happens to immigrate there to throw his "culture-du-jour" onto it, obscuring whatever was there before?
Your post is fatuous, ill-thought out, multi-culti nonsense. Originally I felt bad because of my sarcastic rejoinder to your original post. Now I feel I was not even harsh enough on you. Frankly, people like you scare me. You are willing to destroy whole worlds to prove a nebulous, self-contradictory theory.
PS - There was much less conflict in my state when assimilation was enforced instead of everyone having the "right" to keep their culture (i.e. multi-culti), and the government and schools certainly worked a lot better.
"Differences" do not unite people. Only similarities do that.
Here is a good comment on Putnam by Ilana Mercer:
ReplyDeleteDamned Diversity
Friday, July 13, 2007
When an academic "discovers" what ordinary mortals have known for eons, it's called science. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has found that diversity is not a strength, but a weakness; the greater the diversity in a community, the greater the distrust. Prof. Putnam's five-year study was reported last year by the Financial Times, and is finally percolating down to others in the media and across the blogosphere.
In diverse communities, Putnam observed, people "hunker down": they withdraw, have fewer "friends and confidants," distrust their neighbors regardless of the color of their skin, expect the worst from local leaders, volunteer and carpool less, give less to charity, and "agitate for social reform more," with little hope of success. They also huddle in front of the television. Activism alternates with escapism, unhappiness with ennui.
Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history," a finding the "progressive" Putnam, who hangs out at Harvard, found perplexing. Almost as predictable is the manner in which these straightforward, sad findings are being misconstrued by puzzled pundits or pressure groups accustomed to maligning You Know Who. The Commission for Racial Equality hasn't heard a word Putnam has said. "Separateness is becoming more entrenched in parts of our society," they warned ominously, in response, and hastened to rededicate themselves to "encouraging people from different communities to meet and understand one another." Putnam, of course, said nothing about misunderstanding or roiling conflict. Diversity triggered not racial hostility but "anomie or social isolation," as he put it.
Writing for City Journal about the sad settings Putnam excavated statistically, John Leo also introduced an error: "Social psychologists have long favored the optimistic hypothesis that contact between different ethnic and racial groups increases tolerance…." Putnam said nothing about intolerance. If anything, he makes it abundantly clear that he found no evidence of "bad race relations, or ethnically defined group hostility." Rather, diversity generates withdrawal and isolation. The thousands surveyed were not intolerant, bigoted, or even hostile; they were merely miserable. This is mass depression, the kind associated with loss, quiet resignation, and hopelessness.
Formulaically, other perplexed pundits fingered multiculturalism and the failure to assimilate. Again, this is not what Putnam has unraveled. Not a word did he say about whether newcomers in the 41 localities studied across the US fly Old Glory, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or are proficient in English—or whether these mattered at all. He merely examined the impact on trust and sociability of racial and ethnic diversity, only to find that it messes equally with men, women, conservatives, liberals, rich and poor alike. (He does concede that "the impact of diversity is definitely greater among whites," but, predictably, fails to dignify the finding.) There is nothing in Putnam's research to implicate assimilation or lack thereof.
Like all social scientists living in symbiosis with statists, Putnam doesn't confine himself to observations; he offers recommendations. Having aligned himself with central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the factual gloom-and-doom with a stern pep talk. Take the lumps of diversity without complaining! Mass immigration and the attendant diversity are, overall, good for the collective. (Didn't he just spend five years demonstrating the opposite?)
To sum, a scientist-cum-policy wonk "uncovers" patterns of co-existence among human beings that are as old as the hills. Greater diversity equals more misery. Does he respect these age-old peaceful preferences? No. Instead, with all the sympathy of a social planner, he reaffirms the glories of forced integration, and recommends dismantling old identities and constructing new, "shared" ones. Putnam pelts the many thousands of miserable individuals he interviewed with utilitarian platitudes: cheap Tyson chicken and colorful cuisine will, in time, ameliorate their misery.
Susan, two incisive comments. I especially liked the way you finished each one:
ReplyDelete"Diversity" never lasts. It just leads to monoculture in the end.
Diversity can only be a temporary stage on the way to something else. You can't have 100 different cultures all surviving in the same place. Something else will step in: perhaps a kind of empty commercial culture or a dominant foreign culture.
In which case, why destroy the original monoculture in the first place? What has this achieved except to reduce diversity on the global scale?
"Differences" do not unite people. Only similarities do that.
Susan, this is a fearlessly unorthodox way to put things. Still, it strikes me immediately as being true. Inevitably there will be a whole range of differences within any community. But it isn't these differences which provide a sense a connection between people. It is the things people have in common which carry out this role.
s., thanks for posting the Ilana Mercer piece.
ReplyDeleteShe does a particularly good job in criticising the intrusive social engineering advocated by Putnam.
Mark I certainly think you make convincing points and can definitely see the logic in them. I’ll be open and admit I agree with Putnam that people should be able to retain ethnic identities at a personal level and identify with overarching public identity – in this case as a member of the human species, as opposed to country or race.
ReplyDeleteI will also be open and freely admit that I believe in the future the lines between particular cultures will be blurred. I think this is inevitable as the world shrinks and as there is more and more exposure to other cultures – in areas like you mentioned; art and access to a wide variety of information from a wide variety of sources. I don’t think this has to lead to a loss of identity, in fact I think it will broaden people’s understanding of identity and how it is constructed.
I think the act of closing borders in itself enforces the idea that those who are culturally different pose a threat to our own culture. They are ‘outsiders’, who if we associate too closely with, will ‘corrupt’ us. While I don’t think people who agree with you necessarily consciously believe this, I believe the underlying psychological and cultural implications are exactly that – an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality. “Sure, appreciate their art and customs from a distance, but don’t let them get too close or they’ll distort your identity.”
“The truth, I think, is that we were too absorbed in our own culture to care about any hatreds toward far distant peoples.”
But this is the danger that I’m talking about. Without direct exposure to diversity and experience in learning to tolerate it, you encourage a culturally insulated society. It’s amazing how easily this can be turned into hatred, precisely because there is no understanding and appreciation of diversity. When you have a multicultural community where people of different backgrounds are living together, you find that it is harder to inflame an irrational hatred within people. When people have no direct understanding of other cultures they are susceptible to stereotypes and generalizations. It becomes quite easy to rally the ‘tribe’ to go to war in the national interest – which can be anything from securing resources to establishing compliant regimes. I think there is less public tolerance today for war precisely because people have had more direct exposure to diverse cultures and are beginning to see themselves first and foremost as human beings.
Moreover don't the natives of a culture have the right to remain what they are? Doesn't Australia have a right to be a culture in and of itself, not just a blank canvas for every Tom, Dick and Abdullah who happens to immigrate there to throw his "culture-du-jour" onto it, obscuring whatever was there before?
ReplyDeleteI guess this is where we differ in our outlook. I don’t see it as obscuring, I see it as enriching. I see culture as a continually evolving phenomenon – and rightly so. Without moving forward we proclaim that what we have no is perfect and should forever stay the same. I don’t believe that. I believe change is inevitable and necessary (which I realize is probably in direct contrast to the position of this blog).
Your post is fatuous, ill-thought out, multi-culti nonsense. Originally I felt bad because of my sarcastic rejoinder to your original post. Now I feel I was not even harsh enough on you. Frankly, people like you scare me. You are willing to destroy whole worlds to prove a nebulous, self-contradictory theory.
With all due respect Susan, because we differ in ideologies does not mean I am fatuous, or espousing nonsense. With that comment you simply tell me that you are dogmatic and cannot engage in an open discussion with an open mind. I do not believe what I am suggesting will destroy ‘whole worlds’, in fact I believe it will encourage more unity amongst the human species – the aim being precisely the opposite…to avoid destruction. I think there is more than enough evidence - if you read basic psychology and if you analyse history and politics – to support the idea.
Sorry left this bit out...
ReplyDeleteWhat if an important part of one's culture is oppressing other peoples' culture, as in Islam where a whole host of religious beliefs (such as banning alcohol, pigs and dogs) impinges on other peoples' cultural freedom?
But that’s precisely why I said there should be constitutional laws that maintain individual liberty. People who subscribe to Islamic culture are free not to drink alcohol, eat pigs and not own dogs….they are not free to deny other people their right to do these things.
With all due respect Susan, because we differ in ideologies does not mean I am fatuous, or espousing nonsense. With that comment you simply tell me that you are dogmatic and cannot engage in an open discussion with an open mind. I do not believe what I am suggesting will destroy ‘whole worlds’, in fact I believe it will encourage more unity amongst the human species – the aim being precisely the opposite…to avoid destruction. I think there is more than enough evidence - if you read basic psychology and if you analyse history and politics – to support the idea.
ReplyDeleteWith open borders, all "good" nations will be swamped, and will simply become "bad" nations. I have already seen it happen here in my native homeland, on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse because of too much swamping from a Third World culture. Moreover you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. The native-born population who have invested in an infrastructure and a welfare state all their lives, will not stand for those who have not paid for that infrastructure and welfare, to partake of it in huge numbers. They will either revolt, or run away, leaving the newcomers to themselves in the (formerly) good nation. Nation and culture effectively destroyed.
What I’m suggesting is that exposing people to other cultures will eventually lead to greater tolerance of them. Segregation will simply reinforce the tribalistic “us and them” mentality. We only have to look around at the wars that are being fought today. In most cases diversity isn’t the cause of them, a lack of tolerance for that diversity is.
I liked Mexicans before they flooded my homeland in huge numbers and wiped out my native culture. I don't like them nearly as much now as I used to. Lots of people in my state feel the same way. Exposure to open borders has made me less tolerant, not more. Case closed.
I do not believe what I am suggesting will destroy ‘whole worlds’, in fact I believe it will encourage more unity amongst the human species – the aim being precisely the opposite…to avoid destruction. I think there is more than enough evidence - if you read basic psychology and if you analyse history and politics – to support the idea.
See above, the nations of the West will be destroyed by swamping and flooding en masse. No one's going to flood Swaziliand. What's to stop 300 million people from flooding the US, for example, and deciding, hey lots of nice houses and stuff here, let's kick them out of their houses and take them for ourselves? Easily done in the world of open borders.
But that’s precisely why I said there should be constitutional laws that maintain individual liberty. People who subscribe to Islamic culture are free not to drink alcohol, eat pigs and not own dogs….they are not free to deny other people their right to do these things.
Are you envisioning maintaining a democracy in your open borders utopia? If so, then once Muslims reach a majority, (which they would do in numerous democratic countries, given open mass borders) your "constitutional protections" for other people would go right out the window.
I'm sorry if I offended you Graham, but you are still a fool and/or evil. The most charitible comparison I could make ot you wuld be the birdlife on Galapagos who've never seen a predator before and so are happy to sit in a human's hand. You are a pampered young child of the West, never exposed to threat or fear or want, and you've lost all semblance of a natural defense mechanism. Again, people who think like you scare me.
Mark that was me posting the Mercer piece. I just didn't sign in with my full name.
Diversity can only be a temporary stage on the way to something else. You can't have 100 different cultures all surviving in the same place. Something else will step in: perhaps a kind of empty commercial culture or a dominant foreign culture.
ReplyDeleteKind of hard to miss that one, if you've see what's happening in Europe and what's happening in my native homeland also. In the both cases, multi-culti weakened the native culture and enforced political correctness (hi graham!) weakened the native resistance. This just cleared the decks for Islam in the former, and the corrupt, chaotic, Mexican drug-gang controlled culture in the latter.
When I was a child, drug-gangs in my homeland simply didn't exist. Now they are found everywhere -- not just the inner cities -- but in rural areas, towns, suburbs, everywhere. Whole towns, formerly peopled by Anglo-cultured, middle-class Americans, have been taken over by the Hispanic drug cartels -- the city councils, the courts, everything.
With open borders, all "good" nations will be swamped, and will simply become "bad" nations. I have already seen it happen here in my native homeland, on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse because of too much swamping from a Third World culture.
ReplyDeleteCome on. You’re going to place the economic troubles of the US at the feet of immigration? While you could probably make a case that it has contributed, I think you’ll find there are quite a few other factors at play as well there Susan. Sounds to me like an irrational and unfounded attempt at scapegoating. At any rate, I also didn’t argue for completely open borders. There obviously needs to be a realistic way of limiting numbers so it is sustainable.
I liked Mexicans before they flooded my homeland in huge numbers and wiped out my native culture. I don't like them nearly as much now as I used to. Lots of people in my state feel the same way. Exposure to open borders has made me less tolerant, not more. Case closed.
Susan you are over-reacting to my comments and making several assumptions about my position. I never argued for entirely open borders. What I did argue in favour of was diversity as opposed to outright segregation. Can you understand the difference? If your area has been overtaken by Mexicans, then that doesn’t sound very diverse to me. Perhaps if your country – and mine – wasn’t so intent on exploiting and manipulating smaller countries for their own economic gain, there would be a greater distribution of wealth and opportunity and these people wouldn’t live in third world conditions – and wouldn’t be so eager to invade your precious land that you feel you have a right to by birth. How do you think your native Indians feel about your position? A little angry perhaps?
And this is where you accuse me of being anti-western and a ‘self hater’ and unpatriotic. I am none of those except the last. I am also aware of historical fact. So if you’d like to debate the factuality of that claim, then we can take that to another venue and I will be more than willing to do so. You can prepare by reading up on the history of your own country's foreign policy, and how it has been 'destroying other cultures' in its own national interest for a long time now. Can I then suggest you move on to the fundamentals of industrial protectionism and how smaller countries are EXTREMELY disadvantaged by the current trade policies of first world nations? But it's ok. You were lucky enough to be born in one so you deserve it.
How dare you espouse the evils of third world culture when you are largely the reason WHY it exists.
See above, the nations of the West will be destroyed by swamping and flooding en masse. No one's going to flood Swaziliand. What's to stop 300 million people from flooding the US, for example, and deciding, hey lots of nice houses and stuff here, let's kick them out of their houses and take them for ourselves? Easily done in the world of open borders.
What’s to stop native people from doing that now? It’s what we call ‘law’. And it is enforced.
Are you envisioning maintaining a democracy in your open borders utopia? If so, then once Muslims reach a majority, (which they would do in numerous democratic countries, given open mass borders) your "constitutional protections" for other people would go right out the window.
As someone who is a citizen of the US you should have a better understanding of exactly what a constitutional republic is. Perhaps it’s because your current administration has undermined it so repeatedly that you’ve forgotten its original purpose. Any constitution worth its salt – in my opinion – should uphold individual liberty. This includes freedom from religion. These basic underpinnings should not be negotiable. They should be the building blocks of the system. Anyone who seeks to undermine that should be held accountable by the state and by the people. As I said previously, I have not argued for entirely open borders and I have argued in favour of basic rights that should not be circumventable.
I'm sorry if I offended you Graham, but you are still a fool and/or evil. The most charitible comparison I could make ot you wuld be the birdlife on Galapagos who've never seen a predator before and so are happy to sit in a human's hand. You are a pampered young child of the West, never exposed to threat or fear or want, and you've lost all semblance of a natural defense mechanism. Again, people who think like you scare me.
You didn’t offend me Susan, you just outted yourself as a bigot. Those kinds of comments add absolutely nothing to the discussion and just prove yourself incapable of engaging in one. The damage is all to you, not me. So no offense taken.
Obviously Graham is too much the modern liberal for us to ever reach agreement.
ReplyDeleteI'll limit myself to a brief remark on Graham's comment about the effect of diversity that:
I don’t see it as obscuring, I see it as enriching.
The reason why Putnam's research is having some effect is that it undermines the diversity = enrichment idea.
Remember, Putnam's basic finding is that diversity = anomie. It leads to lower levels of trust, happiness, friendship and sociability.
Come on. You’re going to place the economic troubles of the US at the feet of immigration?
ReplyDeleteI said California, not the US. We are a self-governing republic with a 200 billion dollar annual budget. We are the 7th largest economy in the world with a population 40 million people (11 percent here illegally.) Maybe you should learn something about us sometime? And yes the swamping of our state has a lot to do with its bankruptcy, crumbling social services, and general misery. 300K native-born Americans leave it every year, to get away from the misery.
At any rate, I also didn’t argue for completely open borders. There obviously needs to be a realistic way of limiting numbers so it is sustainable.
You sure sounded like it to me. Now you are backpedaling? A "realistic way of limiting numbers" is called a border.
Susan you are over-reacting to my comments and making several assumptions about my position. I never argued for entirely open borders. What I did argue in favour of was diversity as opposed to outright segregation. Can you understand the difference?
More backpedaling on the border issue. Who's arguing for "segregation?" I'm arguing for borders -- glad you agree with me.
As someone who is a citizen of the US you should have a better understanding of exactly what a constitutional republic is. Perhaps it’s because your current administration has undermined it so repeatedly that you’ve forgotten its original purpose. Any constitution worth its salt – in my opinion – should uphold individual liberty
Our constitution is amendable by democratic fiat. But anyways, what's stop, say, huge masses of Muslim immigrants from simply replacing it with a Koran-based constitution such as they have in Saudi Arabia? You and what army, graham? Do you think that a piece of paper is by itself capable of defending "bedrock" rights?
What’s to stop native people from doing that now? It’s what we call ‘law’. And it is enforced.
Again, you and what army are going to stop 300 million people from breaking the law? I can tell you that many of the Mexicans don't care two figs for American laws, and because there are so many of them, they can basically get away with everything but murder. An even then. . .
How dare you espouse the evils of third world culture when you are largely the reason WHY it exists.
Neither the US nor the West is responsible for female genital mutilation, child marriage, honor killings, bribery, female infanticide, or many other customs from the Third World that First Worlders would NOT want to live with, much less "celebrate".
I don’t see it as obscuring, I see it as enriching.
Oh please, not that embarassingly trite cliche. In my state my language is in the processed of being replaced by the language of the illegals. It's not "enriching" -- it is a process of replacing. To expect that this doesn't upset people is absurd.
You didn’t offend me Susan, you just outted yourself as a bigot.
'
Falls back on the ever-reliable accusations of "bigotry," when "arguments" for open borders are poked full of wholes.
Sorry, that should be "full of holes.'
ReplyDelete300K native-born Americans leave it [California] every year, to get away from the misery.
ReplyDeleteIf diversity was so enriching it would be the other way around - the existing population would be flocking into areas of diversity like California.
They are voting with their feet.
It's not "enriching" -- it is a process of replacing.
Susan, this cuts through to the reality of the situation. You've held your ground well in writing this.
Thank you mark. Graham's naivete is apparent in his sophomoric belief that Western concepts like constitutions and human rights will somehow prevail in societies where Westerners have been completely displaced.
ReplyDeleteAs for California, there's simply no comparison between what it was 35 years ago and what it is now. And possibly the worst aspect of this change is that we native-born people who know better are forced to go around parotting "diversity is our strength" and "isn't it wonderful how our culture as been enriched", or else we are social (and economic) pariahs. I'll probably join the exodus to Idaho at some point -- I'm faced with sitting around watching my homeland continue to deteriorate, and suffering the psychological torture of that, or moving away from everything I've ever known and starting over again. A lot of Westerners are facing the same issue as we try to escape from "enrichment" to any place -- any place at all -- that will let us be what we are -- Western.
FYI: Pat Buchanan weighs in on Putnam:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_521598.html
It's an excellent column by Buchanan. I had more luck with the link here.
ReplyDeleteSusan you seem pretty intent on framing the discussion in a way that suits you, so perhaps you'd be better of having it with yourself :) You continue to make assumptions about my position based on what you want to believe it to be, not what I have stated it to be.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't say California. You said homeland. I assumed you meant the entire US.
No I'm not backpedalling, unless you mean backpedalling from a position you tried to put me in. The argument is clearly about multiculturalism vs assimilation - which is not necessarily about open borders at all. Not once have I even suggested it, yet you continue to want to have that discussion. Like I said, you're free to it, but I'm not going to play devil's advocate just so your hysteria has some grounding.
Falls back on the ever-reliable accusations of "bigotry," when "arguments" for open borders are poked full of wholes.
No, it's bigotry because you seem to assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is...what was it 'fatuous' and 'evil'. You are the textbook definition of a bigot. Considering I never made any arguments in favour of open borders, you seem to be poking holes in your own. Yet again, you are free to do so. I had hoped we could have a calm and rational discussion, but it seems I was mistaken.
I agree with Mark. I think we are too ideologically opposed to agree entirely on the issue. I will say one thing, I think there are some convincing and important points to be made on both sides. Rational discussion - as opposed to throwing around words like 'evil' - can be beneficial for both sides.
No, it's bigotry because you seem to assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is...what was it 'fatuous' and 'evil'.
ReplyDeleteI said your arguments and proposals were fatuous and evil.
This is the first time you've ever explicitly said you weren't for open borders. Before you had several chances to deny it and you didn't. You clearly believe in massive immigration from the Third World into the West, only making a concession to "sustainability" (i.e. keeping numbers down enough not to scare the native-born tax base away from their fleecing.)
I believe that social experimentation such as you clearly believe in, is evil. It has never done anything but caused massive bloodshed. It WILL cause massive bloodshed in places like the UK and possibly in my homeland, within a decade or two.
For you to dismiss the implications of massive social experimentation as "teething problems" IS fatuous.
I'm actually suprised that we're having a discussion about "multiculturalism" and "diversity" at all. These ideologies and the atomized societies they ahve created are clearly failing on a massive scale all over the Western world, and the native-born population is clearly getting angrier and angrier everywhere that our culture has been "enriched" by massive Third World immigration.
"Enrichment" is a lie.
An excellent discussion of why multi-culti is a danger to Western women:
ReplyDeletelink