the ugliness of ethnic diversity

Greed

Star
Registered
Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity
By John Lloyd in London
Published: October 8 2006 22:08 | Last updated: October 8 2006 22:08
A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that”.

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”

Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”

British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction and Prof Putnam, now working with social scientists at Manchester University, said other European countries would be likely to have similar trends.

His 2000 book, Bowling Alone, on the increasing atomisation of contemporary society, made him an academic celebrity. Though some scholars questioned how well its findings applied outside the US, policymakers were impressed and he was invited to speak at Camp David, Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the “importing” and “exporting” societies, and that trends “have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed”.

In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: “What we shouldn’t do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html
 
Another bump from the archives.

Interesting post; especially in view of the 2008 presidential election.

QueEx
 
It could be me but didn't Senator Obama win the white vote overwhelmingly in states that barely had any black people in it like Idaho and Kansas, but did poorly with whites in states with a large black population like Alabama.

That is one of my favorite dynamics. When we aren't forced to be around each other we love each other.
 
It is an interesting dynamic

Maybe because the further apart we are the less we have to deal with the negatives associated with each other. We strongly remember the things we chose to and vaugely remember what we don't want to.

I think this same dynamic is played out when spouses are seperated from each other for long periods of time No matter the state of the relationship when they are parted if they communicate in between the time apart it is usually with fondness then put them back together and all the old issues come back into play.
 
It could be me but didn't Senator Obama win the white vote overwhelmingly in states that barely had any black people in it like Idaho and Kansas, but did poorly with whites in states with a large black population like Alabama.

That is one of my favorite dynamics. When we aren't forced to be around each other we love each other.

Hmm...

Well...
 
Robert Putnam is a great political scientist. He should know from his previous research on cooperation theory which revealed that repeated interactions with actors distrustful of each other eventually lead to both parties realizing that they are better off when they cooperate/trust each other.

For instance, in the famous 'Prisoner's Dilemma,' -

Game_Theory_prisoners-dilemma.gif

sure there is fear that if the otherside betrays you (defect), you'll be worse off than them, but repeat gaming shows that eventually all sides come the first box of cooperation.

I believe this same dynamic works with diversity.
 
It could be me but didn't Senator Obama win the white vote overwhelmingly in states that barely had any black people in it like Idaho and Kansas, but did poorly with whites in states with a large black population like Alabama.

That is one of my favorite dynamics. When we aren't forced to be around each other we love each other.


No Obama did poorly in the backward former confederate states, expect for Virginia and Florida.

New York, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania have the largest Black populations and he won them all!
 
Diversity Hype Leaves Residue Of Resentment

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532167

Recent stories out of both Philadelphia and San Francisco tell of black students beating up Asian-American students. This is especially painful for those who expected that the election of Barack Obama would mark the beginning of a post-racial America.

While Obama's winning the majority of the votes in overwhelmingly white states suggests that many Americans are ready to move beyond race, it is painfully clear that others are not.

Those who explain racial antagonisms on some rationalistic basis will have a hard time demonstrating how Asian-Americans have made blacks worse off. Certainly none of the historic wrongs done to blacks was done by the small Asian-American population that, for most of its history in this country, has not had enough clout to prevent itself from being discriminated against.

While ugly racial or ethnic conflicts can seldom be explained by rational economic or other self-interest, they have been too common to be just inexplicable oddities — whether in America or in other countries around the world, and whether today or in centuries past.

Resentments and hostility toward people with higher achievements are one of the most widespread of human failings. Resentments of achievements are more deadly than envy of wealth.

The hatred of people who started at the bottom and worked their way up has far exceeded any hostility toward those who were simply born into wealth. None of the sultans who inherited extraordinary fortunes in Malaysia has been hated like the Chinese, who arrived there destitute and rose by their own efforts.

Inheritors of the Rockefeller fortune have been elected as popular governors in three states, attracting nothing like the hostility toward the Jewish immigrants who rose from poverty on Manhattan's Lower East Side to prosperity in a variety of fields.

Others who started at the bottom and rose to prosperity — the Lebanese in West Africa, the Indians in Fiji, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, for example — have likewise been hated for their achievements. Being born a sultan or a Rockefeller is not an achievement.

Achievements are a reflection on others who may have had similar, and sometimes better, chances but who did not make the most of their chances. Achievements are like a slap across the face to those who are not achieving, and many people react with the same kind of anger that such an insult would provoke.

In our own times, especially, this is not just a spontaneous reaction. Many of our educators, our intelligentsia and our media — not to mention our politicians — promote an attitude that other people's achievements are grievances, rather than examples.

When black schoolchildren who are working hard in school and succeeding academically are attacked and beaten up by black classmates for "acting white," why is it surprising that similar hostility is turned against Asian-Americans, who are often achieving academically more so than whites?

This attitude is not peculiar to some in the black community or to the United States. The same phenomenon is found among lower-class whites in Britain, where academically achieving white students have been beaten up badly enough by their white classmates to require hospital treatment.

These are poisonous and self-destructive consequences of a steady drumbeat of ideological hype about differences that are translated into "disparities" and "inequities," provoking envy and resentments under their more prettied-up name of "social justice."

Asian-American schoolchildren who are beaten up are just some of the victims of these resentments that are whipped up. Young people who are seething with resentments, instead of seizing educational and other opportunities around them, are bigger victims in the long run, whether they are blacks in the U.S. or lower-class whites in the U.K.

A decade after these beatings, these Asian-Americans will be headed up in the world, while the hoodlums who beat them up are more likely to be headed for crime and prison.

People who call differences "inequities" and achievements "privilege" leave social havoc in their wake, while feeling noble about siding with the less fortunate. It would never occur to them that they have any responsibility for the harm done to both blacks and Asian-Americans.
 
Back
Top