Let us take the average multiculturalist Conservative, multiculturalist Liberal, or multiculturalist Leftist, Cultural Leftist, or multiculturalist Marxist. We can assume that you are vehemently in favour of diversity and immigration – and that you think diversity is the greatest thing ever.
There is a simple question these people need to answer:
With respect to Western countries in Europe like Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, or Belgium, how much diversity is enough?Is there any limit to diversity?
For example, is the pro-diversity Leftist or Conservative willing to set a limit at which we have had enough diversity?
For example, is it enough diversity when we hit the point when 50% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or when 60% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or 70%? Or 80%? Or 90%
I would like to see the pro-diversity multiculturalists – whether Conservatives or Leftists – answer this question.
How much diversity in the West is enough for you?
And, importantly, are you also calling for similar levels of diversity in African nations, Muslim Middle Eastern nations, Israel, India, South-east Asian nations, China, Japan, and South Korea?
India already has enough diversity.ReplyDelete
Indian diversity resulted in mass murder during the Partition, has resulted in multiple insurgencies and insurrections (such as the Sikh insurgency in the 1980s), and has left several regions unstable and out of control.
No sane person would want his country as multicultural as India.
That's a fascinating take. The Partition was indeed horrifying and why anyone would think diversity was good for India is beyond me.Delete
India is a diverse country where caste ,religion, identity politics play a role unparallel elsewhere. So India is a special case . India is not a good example for the claim that diversity doesn't work.Delete
1. Hindu and muslims Co existed peacefully for centuries ,many muslims served in Hindu kingdom and vice versa.
2. The partition of India happened because the leaders of respective communities wanted the power at the expense of others creating differences between the two.
In India the role of hero worship plays a dominant role not seen elsewhere. Post partition riots in India were mostly caused by religious & nationalist leaders,politicians.
3. In India there are many caste related violence. These people are of same ethnicity ,follow similar religious beliefs etc.
4. Indian cities are much diverse, there has been increase in inter caste /religious marriages etc. So the conditions are improving.
Whether is it possible to have peace within multi cultural society ,yes if managed with proper policies.
I think people have to realize there is much diversity in populations even without immigration, but open borders types never believe in limits, or at least, are never willing to admit it least they lose their argument.ReplyDelete
I'll take this one, since you asked. First of all I think you have some false framing here, but I'll come back to that.ReplyDelete
IMO Multicultural and pro-diversity leftists like myself are primarily concerned about non-discrimination, acceptance and tolerance. Immigration is merely a subset of broader concerns underneath a recognition that we are one humanity on one earth.
We also recognize that the issues currently being caused by mass immigration are a result of our own governments geopolitical strategies for resource extraction and global hegemony.
So we believe people should have the right to move about and seek better opportunities for themselves. The reality is immigration and so called terrorism would slow considerably if Western Governments changed their terrorist creating policies.
And diversity is a fantastic thing. Just have some Chinese food in San Francisco or any bevy of ethnic food varieties in NYC or Chicago to know that.
Furthermore, I'll let you in on a little secret: speaking of the USA, it's already 99% immigrant. I'll grant that maybe you do have a point because I'm pretty sure the natives aren't too happy about that!
But when you ask for a certain percentage and ask how much is too much, I say that's a false question. It could be anywhere on the spectrum from 1-99, but we need to change our ways and our wars first and then let the chips fall where they may!
Thanks for your answer.Delete
A few queries:
(1) if increasing diversity in a largely homogenous society is so great, then why do we have stunning empirical evidence that diversity destroys social trust, cohesion, and social capital?:
(2) if, hypothetically, it were true that increasing diversity in Europe will result in a devastating Islamist insurgency and civil war, do you still support high levels of mass immigration?
(3) Do you also advocate high levels of white and Asian immigration into Zimbabwe and other African countries so that native black people become a minority in Africa? Explain why the dispossession and demographic replacement of blacks in Africa would be good for blacks.
"Furthermore, I'll let you in on a little secret: speaking of the USA, it's already 99% immigrant"Delete
No, it isn't. The majority of people were born in America. They are not immigrants. What you mean to say is that most people are descended from immigrants.
But this only reinforces the bizarre absurdity of the pro-diversity position. Logically, if diversity is awesome, why was it so bad for the Native Americans?
"IMO Multicultural and pro-diversity leftists like myself are primarily concerned about non-discrimination, acceptance and tolerance."Delete
Yes dave, they are tolerant humanists, not multiculturalists or pro cultural diversity. In fact they are against cultural diversity, read Vesta's comment bellow.
I recall Abascal and Baldassarri's 2015 study on diversity and trust casting doubt on Putnam's findings?Delete
With respect to Western countries in Europe like Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, or Belgium, how much diversity is enough? Is there any limit to diversity?ReplyDelete
As much as the people there want it and are willing for it to happen.
For example, is the pro-diversity Leftist or Conservative willing to set a limit at which we have had enough diversity
That's like setting a limit at which we've had enough Freedom.
For example, is it enough diversity when we hit the point when 50% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or when 60% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or 70%? Or 80%? Or 90% Or 100%?
See 1st response.
And, importantly, are you also calling for similar levels of diversity in African nations, Muslim Middle Eastern nations, Israel, India, South-east Asian nations, China, Japan, and South Korea
Nope. I don't live or pay taxes in any of those countries and therefore they are not my responsibility. If there's oppression, I will definitely to say something.
No, it isn't. The majority of people were born in America. They are not immigrants. What you mean to say is that most people are descended from immigrants
The US is still a child playing with it's toes compared to the great Empires of the past. It's still reasonable to insist that we have no real culture and are largely a nation of immigrants.
Logically, if diversity is awesome, why was it so bad for the Native Americans
Why was what so bad for the Native Americans? You call the forced expulsion off their land "diversity?" Perverse indeed.
I bet this won' be published ;-)
Seriously Kevin, why would LK supress a comment which doesn't lay a glove on him? Take as just one example your rejoinder to LK's factual statement about the real fraction who are immigrants. You say it's "reasonable" to pretend otherwise.Delete
I am curious about one thing. "No real culture". Were you one of those complaining about American "cultural imperialism"?
My perspective is as a white native-born Bostonian married to a first generation Korean immigrant. I love cultural diversity.ReplyDelete
The great irony is that the only way to maintain a world with diverse cultures is by limiting mixing. A few generations of unlimited mixing and we would all look and act similarly.
Advocating for unlimited cultural mixing is simply selfish. It means that our generation gets to enjoy abundant diverse societies that took centuries to develop, and screw subsequent generations who only get to read about it.
This kind of thoughtless, hypocritical, self-satisfied selfishness is everywhere in contemporary America. It's why we're OK with spending our childrens' inheritances and plundering the world we will leave them.
We had this convo on Twitter. It depends on what we mean by diversity. Intellectual diversity is a necessity for a healthy society IMO. Otherwise, you get groupthink and collapse (see the run-up to 2008 as case in point).ReplyDelete
Yes. This is a well known fact in the study of decision making. Even the church understood this, hence the (actual, real position of) the Devil's advocate.Delete
Imagine being less open to debate and question than the medieval Catholic Church!
Take another bow. This time The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/ReplyDelete
And another bow. This one is for Kevin and the others who deny there is ever ever ever any vote fraud.ReplyDelete
Those numbers were arrived at using conjecture and equations, not actual documented cases of voting fraud. It's rather funny that those crying about voter fraud can ever prove voter fraud in court.Delete
Hey, I conducted a study that uses a bunch of equations with super-non-biased assumptions that estimates that the number of rapes on college campuses is 8 million times the number of actual convictions for rape in court. It doesn't matter that all the rapes in my estimates are unproven. Obviously we should believe my estimates and chalk the conviction rate up to political bias. Obviously most men in college are rapists. Right, Ken B? Right.
Oh, I also used statistics to estimate that Russians stole the election from Hillary; don't bother me for hard evidence, it isn't needed.
As always, voter fraud in the US is the cry of people who don't want to accept that others might vote for candidates they don't like. It's sour grapes, pure and simple.
You realize that both LK and I have posted on this blog articles about convictions for vote fraud? LK posted about an election in the U.K. that was overturned due to vote fraud.Delete
You can knowingly cite all the misleading statistics you want. It won't affect my opinion of you, I promise.
Yes, and then neglected to mention how those individual cases were a microscopic fraction of the number of court cases accusing various jurisdictions and individuals of voter fraud, nearly all of which are never proven in court. Do you not understand what constitutes a false generalization?Delete
Again, it's shrewdly concealed sour grapes and frustration with democracy.
So, statistical analysis aren't convictions, so they don't count. And convictions are just particular incidents so they don't count.Delete
I don't think "diversity is strength" is some sort of universal maxim, nor do I think "diversity is the greatest thing ever." I agree with Suvy that intellectual diversity is a strength, although I suspect LK would counter that it's possible to have intellectual diversity without mass immigration and racial/ethnic diversity. I'd also contend that quantifying what percentage of the population are made up of immigrants is easier than quantifying how "diverse" a society is.ReplyDelete
With that preamble out of the way, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have reservations about immigrants making up 50% of the population in the old world. If foreign born immigrants are the majority in the countries listed, it's coherent to believe that they will affect the dominant culture while not assimilating. This doesn't even touch on whether the immigrants wish to assimilate in the first place, whether their children will assimilate and have rapidly declining fertility rates, and whether the existing institutions in those European countries are even capable of assimilating that many people in the first place.
I'm less convinced that having 50% immigrant population in the US would be a huge problem. The culture of the United States has developed as a result of the constant influx of immigrants. While there has been plenty of conflict over mass immigration in the US throughout its short history, assimilation has succeeded. None of the generational fearmongering about the current wave of immigrants have come to fruition. Given how much better America is at assimilating immigrant populations , I do think diversity and immigration are an advantage and strength of the United States when compared to other nations in the modern era. Now, as with the European nations, it also depends where the immigrants are coming from, and what their socio-economic background is-I suspect an educated Yoruba would have a much easier time assimilating into American culture than a Mexican farmer. It's also worth noting that the lack of a homogeneous culture in the US has contributed to the complete absence of social democratic ideology in our political discourse.
I do think many of the non-European countries listed would benefit from immigration and doing more to protect those who aren't part of the dominant culture. If South Africa made more strides to protect the Boer minority, that would be an excellent step in the right direction. It would be wonderful if Saudi Arabia permitted Jews entrance into the kingdom, and allowed them to live as protected minorities. On the other hand, if 50% of Israel's population consisted of foreign born immigrants who weren't Jewish, that would destroy the entire purpose of the Jewish state.
And another bow. Is this Kevin's nom de plume?ReplyDelete
How much diversity is enough?ReplyDelete
The question is framed around ethnic diversity, as I understand it. In itself, this is problematic. Ethnically homogeneous countries can also be diverse - even 'vibrant' - on the basis of a variety of subcultures, regions, religions and lifestyle differences. To use an Australian example, the underground miner in Coober Pedy, the alternative lifestyler at Nimbin and the flamboyant artist living in the inner city are very diverse in terms of their culture, way of life and attitudes.
Diversity is in the eye of the beholder. Those who'd look at this range of people and see uniformity are looking very superficially, I'd suggest.
But as to how much ethnic diversity is enough? I'd ask, enough for what?
Enough to support a variety of dining options from different national cuisines (identified as an advantage of diversity in another comment)? Well, you don't need any ethnic diversity in your country for that. There is no reason to think that native born people can't learn to cook any cuisine. Indeed, Australia's top rated Thai food chef is the very local David Thompson.
Enough for a splash of colour and vibrancy at your local supermarket? As above, if you look a little more deeply, you'll find that not all diversity is racial.
Unfortunately I don't think that many of those who are pro-diversity have actually ever thought about what specific advantages come from having an ethnically diverse society. The idea that there are advantages is more often advanced as a post-facto justification for mass immigration.
And mass immigration offers precisely zero net advantages for any established western nation, as far as I can see.
So, LK, perhaps before we ask how much diversity is enough, we might ask what anyone hopes to achieve by fostering ethnically diverse societies? Only when we understand the objective can we make a call about how much is enough..