[Keith_McClary]

Seriously, from the little bit I read, I don't think the study is particularly meaningful. It's tainted by the fact that the most multicultural areas also happen to be the most urban (which to me = most impersonal).

less church attendance
don’t trust the local mayor,
don’t trust the local paper,
don’t trust other people
don’t trust institutions

They seem to assume "social capital" = gullibility.

[gollum]

I think the opinion expressed in the study has merit, a group of people with a commonality is a nation. In every part of the world be it Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or Iraq when circumstances, government, or outside forces impose multiculturalism one observes tragedy after tragedy.

[Serial_Worrier]

The problem isn't diversity, it's FORCED diversity by Marxists.

[Oakley]

Quite an interesting write-up.

Diversity has a major element of division. I think that good economic conditions flowing from the industrial age allow us to tolerate division, as we have done so over the history of the US, with the exception of the 1861 attempt of the Southern States to become independent of the rule of the federal government. I don't expect the thin veneer of civility to continue as survival becomes the primary issue in the terminal days of the industrial age (next decade or two).

There is a serious division today between those who want pervasive government and those who want freedom from it. I can see how the lack of the ability to communicate works right here on this site. People seem to be too invested in the charactertures (prejudices) they hold of those on the opposite to understand even what is being said. All this leads me to believe that there is little hope for any peaceful political solution to the problems that this period in history has brought us. The federal government I think is near its end.

Whether we fall into revolution with left vs. right, urban vs. rural, or civil war with blue vs. red or Hispanic vs. Black vs. Caucasian, I think a violent future awaits us. We will be lucky if we move away from diversity as did the USSR did in the 1990's by just shutting the doors to the federal government and letting the cards fall where they may.

The complexity and cost of massive centralized government as we have today is no more sustainable than is our energy dependent industrial age. The forces of nature will insist that we localize, not only in economic matters, but in political arrangements. States may well turn out to be too large themselves.

The US is currently not a free country. It is a fascist state where large financial interests and government have become one, and laws are used to shift wealth out of the pockets of the majority into the pockets of those with privilege and with political position. People are only now beginning to understand that the current political arrangements are detrimental to their lives, as their economic circumstances shake them from their slumber.

[Cid_Yama]

Racism has nothing to do with the original post.

ROFLMAO!

I looked up this study online and had to sort through the White Supremacist sites that are spreading it.

Don't try to tell me this study was posted from political/cultural neutrality.

It isn't even Putnam's fault. His study has been twisted to be used by those who want claim cause for their bigotry.

The Saguaro Seminar, under the leadership of Robert D. Putnam, has been conducting research on the inter-relation of diversity (mainly examining race and ethnicity), immigration and social capital since 2001. We have also been examining the relationship between inequality and both diversity and social capital.

There are three key elements of this research, each equally important:
1 - Increased diversity and immigration are essential, inevitable and generally strengthen advanced nations;
2 - But in the short-term, diversity and immigration challenges community cohesion; and
3 - Longer-term, successful immigrant societies overcome these challenges by building a broader sense of "we". America has successfully done this with the wave of immigration from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. This integration can be done through popular culture, education, national symbols, or common experiences (like national service).

link

Putnam is calling for GREATER acceptance of cultural diversity and creating a broader sense of "we".

[Newfie]

Yes these are not new concepts. We are most likely to care for those who look most like us.

This is part of the role sports play in our culture, it gives us something to bind around. If you are from Philly you hate the Cowboys, no matter your race, color, or creed.

I would not say that it is so much that diversity destroys social capital but that social capital is more difficult to disperse evenly in a diverse culture.

Unfortunately I see more and more of this kind of "racism," for lack of a better word, seeping into our conversations including here on PO. Liberals despise the ignorant trailer trash who can figure out the Republicans are using them. Tea Party seem to hate any social life lines. Aw, you know what I mean. Geeze.

My fear is that as we become more stress out out we will tend to turn more and more to our own ilk for succor, further isolating ourselves. Congress is doing a pretty good job of modeling destructive social behavior. As the trend continues we may well end up with a powerful political party that rides on these currents. Be it right wing or socialism I don't know, nor do I care.

This kind of divisiveness is spreading like blood poisoning through our culture as oppressed segments look for someone to scapegoat.

Someone will be looking to capitalize on the ferment.

[Oakley]

Putnam is calling for GREATER acceptance of cultural diversity and creating a broader sense of "we".

But isn't that representative of the one of our major divisions. Some would argue that what we need is not broader identity, but narrower identity, so narrow that we all see ourselves as equal independent beings. There are two ways to transcend group identity. One is what Putnam suggest, greater collectivism. The opposite is abandonment of group identity, recognizing ourselves as individuals.

My own view is that we are much healthier emotionally not taking our identity from seeing ourselves as part of a group. One theory of identity is that we are born without one, and see the entire world as part of ourselves. As we develop we start more and more to see that we are separate from the rest of the world. The terrible two's of which many mothers speak is the early evidence of this formation of individual identity which culminates in the identity crisis of teen years. Those who form healthy, independent personalities manage to navigate this journey and face life as capable independent beings, recognizing that there is no one inside them but themselves; alone, but not lonely. Those who fail to navigate this journey take on an identity motivated by what they think others approve of; being part of the group you might say.

It is from those who have failed for form a strong individual identity that the danger comes. It is they who march lock step into war with their fellow countrymen, willing to commit atrocities against the others; it is they who support their country, right or wrong; it is they who will bash in the heads of Jews, blacks, and fags; it is they who support laws that separate us into sub groups, favoring some at the expense of others; and it is they who demand others take care of them, or that we solve our problems as a group. This is the disease of the collectivist mind.

I suggest it is not more collectivism and identity with a broader collective that is the solution, but healthy individuality and lack of group identity that is the answer. Such individuality and independence does not preclude social living, but that living is by consent and negotiation rather than by force and group think.

Given the poor mental health of the world population, of course we face a bleak future of division fostered by group identity and the resulting war and genocide.

[Pops]

Someone will be looking to capitalize on the ferment.

And who might that be I wonder? Capitalists, perhaps?

Could it be that Murdock and Koch are just giggling their collective heads off at their success in pulling off this scab? The old white guys come through in the clutch to rescue the corps from - gasp! - re-regulation!

The extent people will go to in hiding their bigotry is always amazing to me, makes me laugh - just like I laugh at how hard some people work to not work, or prove the Bible "scientifically" - come on, be proud of what you are, don't hide your light under a basket!


The problem is - and you won't hear this on Fox, this time around the robber barons have really hit on a winning formula - they've convinced the little guy that all government regulations including those aimed at corporations are a threat to the little guy's "freedom" and that giving corps the rights of a natural person - without the responsibilities, is Good for America.

They've somehow made the underclass believe they pay too much tax so they continue to vote for less tax on the overclass.

They urge the little guy to buy guns because that makes him feel safe - and after all, guns are no threat to corporations (or the government for that matter) and where are you going to shoot a corporation anyway? Besides, gun manufacturers need profits too.

But most importantly, they encourage the little guy to be zealous in his religion and prejudices because that eliminates the threat he will come together with others to limit the power of the corporation.

Kennedy and Johnson sealed the deal with civil rights and Reagan made selfishness cool again but it took the election of a black guy to really rally the troops - we know it wasn't deficits, elective wars, or elimination of civil liberties because Bush did all that.

[Plantagenet]

it took the election of a black guy to really rally the troops - we know it wasn't deficits, elective wars, or elimination of civil liberties because Bush did all that.

Bush became very unpopular because he did those things, and he wasn't black.

Now Obama has continued or worsened the same policies that made Bush unpopular, and you think Obama is unpopular because he's black?

Sheesh.

[efarmer]

There is plenty of capital for another can kick in the system. It is simply being made dependent on installing Republican corporate puppets as they are more obedient than the Democratic corporate puppets. The trajectory we are on is a dead end until it gets major overhaul.

This is just a game of lock the money system up full of other people's money until you get the government you want installed.

We are going to kick the can and accelerate wealth concentration for the top dogs.

We are arguing about when the next fix gets injected and by whom, we are not talking about
getting "clean" at all.

[SeaGypsy]

Who was it said: "Sooner or later every conversation, let run long enough, will gravitate towards (you guessed it) Hitler"? Althemore so when the initial subject is RACE. (Der)

Imagine if 20 years ago someone with a big name in the US came out and said:

"By the year 2010 the following positions will be held by black (actually mixed blood) Americans:

The world's best women tennis players of all time. (Venus and Serena)

The most successful golfer of all time. (Tiger) [disclaimer for getting laid a bit too much according to some]

The President of the USA.

Wake up you suburban white trash. You are being beaten, flogged at your own game by the descendents of raped slaves. Ugly fact.

The article introducing this thread is quite well written and accurate in many ways; however it does not take into account what happens when the blip of racial introduction is over. People do what people do, one of those things is getting on with life and making babies. I spend a lot of time in a country which has been colonised by 4 nations in the last 1000 years, each with a different race and language. It is by far the least racist place I have ever been. My wife has a total of 4 races and speaks 3 of their languages, she hasn't a racist bone in her body. Where she is from this is normal.

Will be everywhere else too soon enough oh poor purist xenophobes!

(Thanks to posters on this thread, good dig to find.)

[gollum]

My wife and I went to a viewing for a little girl who had died last night, they were of a kind of obscure religious sect (around 6000 members worldwide). They work hard, keep to themselves in marriage, don't have TV or radio... sort of a semi closed society. Anyway there was definite social capital there in ways our mainstream religion will never have. If my wife would go for it we would join/convert. My point is that like race and culture breeds a commonness that diversity can never match, not in 1000 years. When the wheels start falling off of the modern industrial society card watch out!

[SeaGypsy]

Yawn.
You might be right, for you.
Boring.

[gollum]

I'm not advocating racial hatred, I'm just saying that societies where there is commonality in race and religion endure, cobbled together countries with artificial borders don't. Many countries in Africa and the Middle east fit this bill. I'm sure the Jews in Germany and Poland thought there was racial harmony in 1925 too, until there wasn't.

[Ludi]

In mixed race countries like the US, how will folks tell what race everyone is? Will we be back to the "paper bag test" or something?

[Plantagenet]

In mixed race countries like the US, how will folks tell what race everyone is? Will we be back to the "paper bag test" or something?

Every 10 years the US census will send everyone a form with long lists of various ethnic groups, races and countries of origin and you'll check the appropriate boxes.

[Pops]

and you think Obama is unpopular because he's black?

Rush seems happy to flaunt that 91% of blacks still support him, I'm guessing he said it's them that are racist. Right?

Here's the results from Gallup:

[Serial_Worrier]

it took the election of a black guy to really rally the troops - we know it wasn't deficits, elective wars, or elimination of civil liberties because Bush did all that.

Bush became very unpopular because he did those things, and he wasn't black.

Now Obama has continued or worsened the same policies that made Bush unpopular, and you think Obama is unpopular because he's black?

Sheesh.

Lefties love stoking the racial fires. It's all the they've got left. Did you notice in Philly how the Obama rally was almost 100% black?

[Ludi]

Lefties love stoking the racial fires. It's all the they've got left. Did you notice in Philly how the Obama rally was almost 100% black?

Are you saying almost 100% of lefties are black?

[Pops]

Lefties love stoking the racial fires.

It's funny you should say that, I wouldn't normally reply to you but I was just thinking how it seems the doublespeak thing has really caught on with the right. It's like those backdrops everyone has for every photo op with slogans implying exactly the opposite of whatever they are pumping, the same with the names of the front groups for corporate "persons" exercising their constitutional free speech rights that are along the lines of "Bambi Lovers for Puppies" and pay millions of dollars for advertisements aimed at hunters or some such.

It makes me wonder if you all really believe those little ditties or if you think repeating them will make everyone else believe them... or if you don't really believe anything and are just parroting what your favorite Fox commentator/preacher/talking head says; like "Sweet!" or "Ay, caramba!"