• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is diversity a threat to America?

Is diversity a threat to America?


  • Total voters
    114
I think there is a difference between assimilation and diversity, and using hyphens helps explains diversity in a historical and factual way. For example, the cast of Jersey Shore are Italian-Americans from the Jersey Shore. They call themselves "guidos." They represent Italian-American culture in and around the Jersey Shore. They have lived in America for generations. They are fully assimilated into American society, and they assimilated into their community where guido subculture is popular.

During WWII there were German-Americans who identified as Nazis and started Nazi organizations in America. They held the same Nazi philosophical beliefs about Germans being a superior race, etc.

Even our concept of foreign food like Chinese, Mexican, and Italian is unique to American influence. I have had Turkish meat served with saurkraut and potatoes. We fuse cultures like that.

Analyzing groups of people as it relates to their heritage helps explain a lot about how America's uniqueness. You're also better informed if you recognize things like people of Irish and Italian backgrounds tend to be Catholic, the Amish came from Switzerland, etc.
All of those things can be done just as effectively... more so, IMO... without the underlying abuse that also results from *-American. In some, not all, cases, to be fair. *-American says, "We're with you, buuuuuut... not really.", when used on an everyday basis. Something like Irish-American is generally only used in limited and specific instances where the designation is important to that particular discussion, not on an everyday basis.

It's not always factual, either. Not all blacks are of African decent. Not all of African decent are black. "African-American" only means the lower 2/3 of Africa, for example. How does the 5th generation white Zimbabwean farmer who emigrates to the US fit in? He's not black. His heritage is more African than European, and possibly neither he nor his parents have ever even set foot in Europe. Yet, no one would call him an African-American when he is actually more so than the African-American who immigrated from Jamaica.

More than once I have seen Americans refer to black British actors as African-American. They're not American.
 
All of those things can be done just as effectively... more so, IMO... without the underlying abuse that also results from *-American. In some, not all, cases, to be fair. *-American says, "We're with you, buuuuuut... not really.", when used on an everyday basis. Something like Irish-American is generally only used in limited and specific instances where the designation is important to that particular discussion, not on an everyday basis.

It's not always factual, either. Not all blacks are of African decent. Not all of African decent are black. "African-American" only means the lower 2/3 of Africa, for example. How does the 5th generation white Zimbabwean farmer who emigrates to the US fit in? He's not black. His heritage is more African than European, and possibly neither he nor his parents have ever even set foot in Europe. Yet, no one would call him an African-American when he is actually more so than the African-American who immigrated from Jamaica.

More than once I have seen Americans refer to black British actors as African-American. They're not American.

lol...

White people from Africa are not native to Africa. They settled there from the colonies. If you talk to white Africans, they hyphenate, which is perfectly logical. For example, most white South Africans are of Dutch or English decent. South Africa also officially recognizes 17 official languages (last time I checked), because they have so many diverse groups there. Hyphens are pretty common in former colonies.

I could talk about this a lot, because I have a lot of friends from former colonial countries in the Middle East and Africa. Identifying with one's ethnic group is way more common than identifying with the national country, but it doesn't mean "we are with you... but not really."

The Pakistani people left India together. Pakistanis are brothers and sisters and have love for Pakistan, but they also have very close connections to their ethnic groups.

Welsh and Cornish people in England are the same way. They try to revive their languages and keep it alive.

I don't see it as a threat to any country. I don't think any country will unravel, because of hyphens. I also think it's extremely unfair that you are willing to give "Irish-American" more of a pass than "African-American." That's just wrong. If you don't see a problem with an American of Irish descendent identifying with their ancestry, then you shouldn't have a problem with a person of African decedent doing the very same. A black American has every right to be proud of where their ancestors came from as my friend who adores Ireland.
 
lol...

White people from Africa are not native to Africa. They settled there from the colonies. If you talk to white Africans, they hyphenate, which is perfectly logical. For example, most white South Africans are of Dutch or English decent. South Africa also officially recognizes 17 official languages (last time I checked), because they have so many diverse groups there. Hyphens are pretty common in former colonies.

I could talk about this a lot, because I have a lot of friends from former colonial countries in the Middle East and Africa. Identifying with one's ethnic group is way more common than identifying with the national country, but it doesn't mean "we are with you... but not really."

The Pakistani people left India together. Pakistanis are brothers and sisters and have love for Pakistan, but they also have very close connections to their ethnic groups.

Welsh and Cornish people in England are the same way. They try to revive their languages and keep it alive.

I don't see it as a threat to any country. I don't think any country will unravel, because of hyphens. I also think it's extremely unfair that you are willing to give "Irish-American" more of a pass than "African-American." That's just wrong. If you don't see a problem with an American of Irish descendent identifying with their ancestry, then you shouldn't have a problem with a person of African decedent doing the very same. A black American has every right to be proud of where their ancestors came from as my friend who adores Ireland.
How long does a person's lineage have to be from a certain place before they are of that place? Or, by this conscious separation are we just coming full circle because we're all from the same place?
 
While it's trivially true that people who don't ever integrate are a threat to the body politic, the danger of this is actually happening is pretty much nonexistent and not really established historically. For the better part of a century New York had literal enclaves of people who mainly spoke German, Polish, Russian etc. (my grandmother spoke Yiddish growing up, though she was born here) and where foreign-language newspapers were a staple of the culture there, and even today you still have Chinatowns in many cities. Yet few would dispute that these people eventually melted into the American pot. I think so long as English is taught in public schools every nationality and ethnicity can be assimilated.

Oh, so you're an imperialist racist who wants to impose white norms on people from other cultures. :)


More seriously, I agree - so long as our schools encourage assimilation, communities will be encouraged to assimilate over time. One of my issues is that our educational structure and body politic have shifted from a "melting pot" to a "salad bowl", and seem to take the joke I made above seriously. The last minority to come here en masse has only been fitfully encouraged to assimilate, and, in fact, there has been pressure for them not to.
 
How long does a person's lineage have to be from a certain place before they are of that place? Or, by this conscious separation are we just coming full circle because we're all from the same place?

I am not playing judge and jury, nor am I trying to control what other people do. I don't care what people want to call themselves, and more importantly I don't view hyphens as a threat whatsoever. My personal opinion is that recognizing diversity and understanding it is more beneficial than viewing it as a threat. As I said earlier, examining immigration patterns and heritage helps explains the world in a historical and factual way. It explains why all Africans don't look the same, speak the same languages, or have the same skin color. It helps to explain a lot about America as well; our food, our traditions, and even the differences in geographical regions.
 
I am not playing judge and jury, nor am I trying to control what other people do. I don't care what people want to call themselves, and more importantly I don't view hyphens as a threat whatsoever. My personal opinion is that recognizing diversity and understanding it is more beneficial than viewing it as a threat. As I said earlier, examining immigration patterns and heritage helps explains the world in a historical and factual way. It explains why all Africans don't look the same, speak the same languages, or have the same skin color. It helps to explain a lot about America as well; our food, our traditions, and even the differences in geographical regions.
Right, and as I pointed out, the term then fails to accurately describe. It's not allowed for all who it might apply.
 
What I mean by diversity is immigrants bringing different racial groups, ethnicities, cultures, religions, languages, dialects, foods, customs, etc., and then I said in the OP why people may fear diversity.

One reason people fear diverse groups is that they disrupt homogeneity and not assimilating, which kind of sounds what you're talking about.

I would say that all immigration waves change America or at least their communities is some way. You can see it the restaurants, types of businesses, places of worship, etc. Eventually they do assimilate, especially the kids, the grandkids, etc. It takes time.

...I have been to Chinatown in NYC, and it feels and looks like a foreign country. I don't even know if the people can speak English or if they just live in Chinatown and not assimilate. It seems possible to me though. What do you think about places like that? Is it really a threat?

Hm. Fear is a bad word. Worry is better.

Lack of common identity decreases social trust, and with it, the community necessary to sustain a whole host of things we like, from little leagues to charities to public benefit programs, to peaceful representative government.

Liberals score high on "opennes to new experiences" - as a conservative I often feel that Liberals see only the wonders and fun of new experiences when they look at diversity, and never the flip side of that coin. A diverse society will feature the ability to celebrate St Patricks' Day, Cinco de Mayo, and Chinese New Year. It will also feature groups like the KKK, La Raza, and Black Panthers.

Unless we are willing to assertively stake out a national identity and declare that to be the mold to which we shall all bend, diversity will bring with it problems. That doesn't mean we should force immigrants to match the current ethnic make-up, but it does mean that we should mitigate the troubles they can bring by pro-actively assimilating them into broader American society.

It's a balancing act. The more new people's we bring in, the more proactive we have to be in assimilating them. The less active or successful we are in assimilating them, the less tolerance there will be for bringing new people's in.


One anecdotal example. After college, two of my friends and I moved into a condo in a low-rent part of town (we were still broke waiters and booksellers). We were the only white kids in about a square mile, the rest was all hispanic. Most were probably varying shades of legality, but we thought it was cool because, bloc parties and great mexican food at the nearby restaurants. One of my buddies had a classic mustang he had rebuilt with his dad - beautiful car. He's pulling out to work one day and one of our neighbors T-Bones him, doing about 35, which isn't terribly fast, until it's coming out of a parking lot, and it hits you in the side. The other driver then pulled back, and drove off. Naturally, we called the cops. They came and took notes and then asked if we knew anything about the guy, a tag number, etc.

"Oh yes" we replied, naively, "he lives in that apartment section right there, and works at [Restaurant name] down the road - he's probably there now on shift, and will be back tonight."

The two cops look at each other. "Er, is he an illegal?"

"Uh, I think so - why?"



And that is when we found out that the regular law that applies to you and me doesn't apply to illegals. Because it's too much trouble and paperwork, so long as they aren't actually physically attacking anyone, the cops were under direction not to ticket them, not to arrest them, not to take them in, not to do anything that would force them to notice that the people they were interacting with were here illegally. Tough luck, kid, you understand, I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do - you'll just have to fix the car.

We were all pretty libertarian at that point; more people meant more workers and producers and innovators and thinkers, etc. so on and so forth. After that, we all looked at our neighbors in a different light. We went from thinking we were the local pet-gringo's who liked to drink beer to viewing ourselves as surrounded by law breakers who could do as they pleased.... because they could. Community was broken. My buddy tried to confront the guy and get him to pay for the damages, but that went south pretty fast, and we left after being threatened. We slept with loaded weapons next to our beds after that until the lease was up.




We came face to face with the fact that those around us hadn't assimilated to our system of Rule of Law, and the result was that not only did our tolerance for them go down, but our fear went up, and our perception of the likelihood of violence (which can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, over time) increased dramatically as well.
 
Last edited:
Hm. Fear is a bad word. Worry is better.

Lack of common identity decreases social trust, and with it, the community necessary to sustain a whole host of things we like, from little leagues to charities to public benefit programs, to peaceful representative government.

Liberals score high on "opennes to new experiences" - as a conservative I often feel that Liberals see only the wonders and fun of new experiences when they look at diversity, and never the flip side of that coin. A diverse society will feature the ability to celebrate St Patricks' Day, Cinco de Mayo, and Chinese New Year. It will also feature groups like the KKK, La Raza, and Black Panthers.

Unless we are willing to assertively stake out a national identity and declare that to be the mold to which we shall all bend, diversity will bring with it problems. That doesn't mean we should force immigrants to match the current ethnic make-up, but it does mean that we should mitigate the troubles they can bring by pro-actively assimilating them into broader American society.

It's a balancing act. The more new people's we bring in, the more proactive we have to be in assimilating them. The less active or successful we are in assimilating them, the less tolerance there will be for bringing new people's in.


One anecdotal example. After college, two of my friends and I moved into a condo in a low-rent part of town (we were still broke waiters and booksellers). We were the only white kids in about a square mile, the rest was all hispanic. Most were probably varying shades of legality, but we thought it was cool because, bloc parties and great mexican food at the nearby restaurants. One of my buddies had a classic mustang he had rebuilt with his dad - beautiful car. He's pulling out to work one day and one of our neighbors T-Bones him, doing about 35, which isn't terribly fast, until it's coming out of a parking lot, and it hits you in the side. The other driver then pulled back, and drove off. Naturally, we called the cops. They came and took notes and then asked if we knew anything about the guy, a tag number, etc.

"Oh yes" we replied, naively, "he lives in that apartment section right there, and works at [Restaurant name] down the road - he's probably there now on shift, and will be back tonight."

The two cops look at each other. "Er, is he an illegal?"

"Uh, I think so - why?"



And that is when we found out that the regular law that applies to you and me doesn't apply to illegals. Because it's too much trouble and paperwork, so long as they aren't actually physically attacking anyone, the cops were under direction not to ticket them, not to arrest them, not to take them in, not to do anything that would force them to notice that the people they were interacting with were here illegally. Tough luck, kid, you understand, I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do - you'll just have to fix the car.

We were all pretty libertarian at that point; more people meant more workers and producers and innovators and thinkers, etc. so on and so forth. After that, we all looked at our neighbors in a different light. We went from thinking we were the local pet-gringo's who liked to drink beer to viewing ourselves as surrounded by law breakers who could do as they pleased.... because they could. Community was broken. My buddy tried to confront the guy and get him to pay for the damages, but that went south pretty fast, and we left after being threatened. We slept with loaded weapons next to our beds after that until the lease was up.




We came face to face with the fact that those around us hadn't assimilated to our system of Rule of Law, and the result was that not only did our tolerance for them go down, but our fear went up, and our perception of the likelihood of violence (which can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, over time) increased dramatically as well.

This relates to my point earlier.
Where I live, we have a large company that makes a specific form of textiles.

They were hiring illegals and of course everyone knew it.
The local authorities and the community at large.

What finally took them down and brought them some level of accountability?
A class action lawsuit, not the Feds, not the state government or local government.
The people who sued, all got about $250 in lost wages, but that's a drop in the bucket in terms of lost opportunity and wages in the roughly 10 year period this was going on.
 
All I said was what I said. Maybe you should read it again. Extreme diversity only works with an iron fisted government keeping the people from fighting with that iron fist.

I understood what all you said the first go-round...

You see 'extreme' diversity as a big catch all bin. Comparing brutal dictatorships to this Republic is absurd. You comparing the Sunni/Shia thousand year conflict to our social tensions is ignorant. You thinking gunning down protesters will solve the violence is beyond rationality. But you thinking it was the Roman Gladius kept Rome 'subdued' you only know half the story. Rome gold bought obedience from both subject and wielder of that Gladius. Much of the late Empire's turmoil came from internal conflicts as the sword wielders fought for their generals against other generals for that gold.

We don't need or want iron fisted governments, hell we abhor them (real or imagined). Our brand of diversity isn't extreme nor will it ever be extreme. Some who fear it may react in an extreme fashion, some of the Diverse may not play nicely, but we will never have a Sunni/Shia civil war as long as we all remember we all have a seat at the table...

Even weird Uncle Harold... :peace
 
We came face to face with the fact that those around us hadn't assimilated to our system of Rule of Law.

Assimilation is the key point in all that.

In the old days they just shut down immigration completely for a generation to give people time to assimilate. Maybe it's time to do that again.

Like many you have a personal story that exposed you to the reality of a double standard. ( I do as well and it is why I am so opposed to Obamacare)

To those who advocate diversity without assimilation I would recommend pouring themselves a half beverage of choice then adding in 5 percent increments a disparate liquid like oj, various sodas, pickle juice, coffee, chocolate milk, liquor, beer, wine, fruit juices, or whatever.

Get it to the brim and mix well.

Drink it.

Odds are you will never try that again.

Our strength always was and always will be our unity in laws and goals. A desire to succeed and be generous to those less fortunate to enable/empower them to rise above their situation and not trap them into a welfare voting block.

Not the color of anything.
 
Right, and as I pointed out, the term then fails to accurately describe. It's not allowed for all who it might apply.

That's what you keep saying, but you have to understand that being African is more than just being black. A white South African is most likely descended from the Dutch or English. A white Namibian is most likely from German descendent, and they call themselves German-Namibians.

German Namibians (German: Deutschnamibier) are a community of people descended from ethnic German colonists who settled in present-day Namibia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Namibians

Sometimes hyphens help to clarify things like that.
 
I understood what all you said the first go-round...

You see 'extreme' diversity as a big catch all bin. Comparing brutal dictatorships to this Republic is absurd. You comparing the Sunni/Shia thousand year conflict to our social tensions is ignorant. You thinking gunning down protesters will solve the violence is beyond rationality. But you thinking it was the Roman Gladius kept Rome 'subdued' you only know half the story. Rome gold bought obedience from both subject and wielder of that Gladius. Much of the late Empire's turmoil came from internal conflicts as the sword wielders fought for their generals against other generals for that gold.

We don't need or want iron fisted governments, hell we abhor them (real or imagined). Our brand of diversity isn't extreme nor will it ever be extreme. Some who fear it may react in an extreme fashion, some of the Diverse may not play nicely, but we will never have a Sunni/Shia civil war as long as we all remember we all have a seat at the table...

Even weird Uncle Harold... :peace

Minorities never really have a seat at the table.

Which is why nobody wants to be a minority.

And why the Latinos are trying so damned hard to sneak in and have enough kids to become the majority.

Any white who wants to help them take over is a damned fool.

:usflag2:
 
How frightened you must be Vox.
 
Hm. Fear is a bad word. Worry is better.

Lack of common identity decreases social trust, and with it, the community necessary to sustain a whole host of things we like, from little leagues to charities to public benefit programs, to peaceful representative government.

Liberals score high on "opennes to new experiences" - as a conservative I often feel that Liberals see only the wonders and fun of new experiences when they look at diversity, and never the flip side of that coin. A diverse society will feature the ability to celebrate St Patricks' Day, Cinco de Mayo, and Chinese New Year. It will also feature groups like the KKK, La Raza, and Black Panthers.

Unless we are willing to assertively stake out a national identity and declare that to be the mold to which we shall all bend, diversity will bring with it problems. That doesn't mean we should force immigrants to match the current ethnic make-up, but it does mean that we should mitigate the troubles they can bring by pro-actively assimilating them into broader American society.

It's a balancing act. The more new people's we bring in, the more proactive we have to be in assimilating them. The less active or successful we are in assimilating them, the less tolerance there will be for bringing new people's in.


One anecdotal example. After college, two of my friends and I moved into a condo in a low-rent part of town (we were still broke waiters and booksellers). We were the only white kids in about a square mile, the rest was all hispanic. Most were probably varying shades of legality, but we thought it was cool because, bloc parties and great mexican food at the nearby restaurants. One of my buddies had a classic mustang he had rebuilt with his dad - beautiful car. He's pulling out to work one day and one of our neighbors T-Bones him, doing about 35, which isn't terribly fast, until it's coming out of a parking lot, and it hits you in the side. The other driver then pulled back, and drove off. Naturally, we called the cops. They came and took notes and then asked if we knew anything about the guy, a tag number, etc.

"Oh yes" we replied, naively, "he lives in that apartment section right there, and works at [Restaurant name] down the road - he's probably there now on shift, and will be back tonight."

The two cops look at each other. "Er, is he an illegal?"

"Uh, I think so - why?"



And that is when we found out that the regular law that applies to you and me doesn't apply to illegals. Because it's too much trouble and paperwork, so long as they aren't actually physically attacking anyone, the cops were under direction not to ticket them, not to arrest them, not to take them in, not to do anything that would force them to notice that the people they were interacting with were here illegally. Tough luck, kid, you understand, I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do - you'll just have to fix the car.

We were all pretty libertarian at that point; more people meant more workers and producers and innovators and thinkers, etc. so on and so forth. After that, we all looked at our neighbors in a different light. We went from thinking we were the local pet-gringo's who liked to drink beer to viewing ourselves as surrounded by law breakers who could do as they pleased.... because they could. Community was broken. My buddy tried to confront the guy and get him to pay for the damages, but that went south pretty fast, and we left after being threatened. We slept with loaded weapons next to our beds after that until the lease was up.




We came face to face with the fact that those around us hadn't assimilated to our system of Rule of Law, and the result was that not only did our tolerance for them go down, but our fear went up, and our perception of the likelihood of violence (which can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, over time) increased dramatically as well.

You're not going to find me supporting illegal immigration or what happened in your story, and that's what this thread is about. I am simply talking about diversity.
 
That's what you keep saying, but you have to understand that being African is more than just being black. A white South African is most likely descended from the Dutch or English. A white Namibian is most likely from German descendent, and they call themselves German-Namibians.

German Namibians (German: Deutschnamibier) are a community of people descended from ethnic German colonists who settled in present-day Namibia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Namibians

Sometimes hyphens help to clarify things like that.
Indeed it is, yet that's what it has come to mean when... in America... we use the term African-American. Your point only applies there. We don't call whites Namibians German-Namibians, we just call them white. Pretty much no one here in America really gives a rat's ass about the nuances.

Why do we call blacks from Jamaica African-American, instead of Jamaican-American? Is it because their heritage goes back further than Jamaica, or something else?

Brings us full-circle back to the question, how far back does one have to go before they are considered of a particular place? I'm sure there are probably Jews who could claim Israeli-American-Canadian-German-Polish-Russian Jews.

Like almost everyone else *I* have roots elsewhere. My family lineage goes back to France, approximately from the 1830s, shorter than some blacks. I don't go around referring to myself as "French American" or "European American", because it's irrelevant and in most circumstances completely unnecessary. If it's relevant to the conversation at hand I will then say, "I am of French decent."

If I see a black person, "African American" doesn't tell me anything I don't already know, that they most likely have African heritage to some extent. What would be more informative would be something like "Gambian American".
 
How frightened you must be Vox.

Are the blacks who advocate for their race frightened?

Are the Latinos who advocate for their race frightened?

I'm not a bit frightened. Why should I be?

Now, if they ever get control.......then there'll be a war.

But I'm prepared so I still would have no cause to be frightened.

Just disappointed that human beings can't treat each other fairly.
 
I'm disappointed that you and those who align with you feel that way,Vox.

How awful it must be for you.
 
I'm disappointed that you and those who align with you feel that way,Vox.

You're disappointed that we feel the same and take steps to protect ourselves just as the other races do?

Why?

Why would you single us out?

Think about it. You may find you don't like yourself as much.
 
Nice try, Vox,

I don't advocate for a war against the races or ethnicities to preserve a white majority.

I'm out and done.
 
Nice try, Vox,

I don't advocate for a war against the races or ethnicities to preserve a white majority.

I'm out and done.

And well you should be.

Accusing me of advocating for a war on races or ethnicities to preserve a white majority.

When you make silly false accusations like that it only reflects badly on you.
 
Diversity is cool. As long as people are nice to each other, are good parents and pay their taxes I am fine with it.

It is the angry lesbian bigots and neo-Nazi racist scum and inner city black gang racists and misogynistic assholes types of people that I have issues with.

People that accept others and work together regardless of gender or race or religion are awesome.
 
Americans restrictionists are called racist & xenophobic yet none have
ever sought to dispel a fellow citizen based on color or creed. What is wrong with
preserving the country we grew up in. In fact, what motivates peoples who insist
that our doors be opened until the European majority has disappeared?
 
diversity seems to genarally be a threat to white folk, typically GOP folk .........

Probably because diversity today is defined by less of those people existing. No one uses diversity to mean white people or white conservatives.
 
Common reasons people fear/oppose immigration and racial diversity may include;

a. There won't be enough jobs

b. Immigrants will not assimilate

c. Immigrants and minorities are prone to committing crime and terrorism

d. American homogeneity will be threatened

e. American culture and values will be threatened


https://fee.org/articles/15-common-arguments-against-immigration-addressed/

I would add

1.) Higher levels of pollution as millions of new arrivals obtain cars, etc.
2.) Housing shortages/higher costs associated with renting.
3.) More development of farmland that can't be retrieved once its lost.
4.) Lower standards of living for the 99% who will compete for low paying jobs while the 1% continue to enjoy the profits.
 
You'd have to be some kind of monster to oppose diversity.

C7rx5NOXgAAIFB4.jpg:large


Yorkshire pudding is a baked batter, and Chicken tikka is a mild Indian curry.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom