NationStates Jolt Archive

*Edit* Yes, I know I spelled Harvard wrong. That's probably why I'm not there. But on a serious note, I typed this really fast because I'm about to go out. So sue me.

The downside of diversity
A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation's social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam's research predicts.

"We can't ignore the findings," says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?"

The study is part of a fascinating new portrait of diversity emerging from recent scholarship. Diversity, it shows, makes us uncomfortable -- but discomfort, it turns out, isn't always a bad thing. Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam's work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.

His findings on the downsides of diversity have also posed a challenge for Putnam, a liberal academic whose own values put him squarely in the pro-diversity camp. Suddenly finding himself the bearer of bad news, Putnam has struggled with how to present his work. He gathered the initial raw data in 2000 and issued a press release the following year outlining the results. He then spent several years testing other possible explanations.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/04/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=1

Well....I think it's something I and many people I know have been saying forever. What do you guys think?

that's because people are racist. cure racism and the problem's gone.

that's because people are racist. cure racism and the problem's gone.
Well thank you for your non productive and unintelligent reply.

And if "people are racist" wouldn't that make racism a natural human trait? Wouldnt "curing" something that people "are", according to you, be unnatural?

Think before you answer please.

that's because people are racist. cure racism and the problem's gone.

So what?

Starvation is a problem because people need food to live, cure the need to eat and starvation, along with all the associated misery, goes away.

If we could cure the need to breathe oxygen too, people could live in the seas like fish and all the problems associated with huge population density would vanish overnight.

Get real.

If you are about to go out then why are you still online? You'd think that you would just post the thread and sign out. I mean, that is what I would do if I were about to go out when I posted a thread.

He neglects the great positive of diversity - that is progress and innovation.

Sure there'll be instability as different cultures mix, possibly war, but the opposite is to stagnate.

I'm not sure why he's surprised at all this, of course there'll be less equality in income, less voting, less trust - it's the great melting pot and great things are happening within.

Difference causes competition, similarity causes everyone to sit within their own defined status and die.

The world is a conflict between those who want tradition and stability and those who want innovation and change - I'm with the latter

Well thank you for your non productive and unintelligent reply.

And if "people are racist" wouldn't that make racism a natural human trait? Wouldnt "curing" something that people "are", according to you, be unnatural?

Think before you answer please.

Just because its there now, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be changed to better the world. It is natural for us to change and adapt to make our lives easier, and better off.

Well thank you for your non productive and unintelligent reply.

And if "people are racist" wouldn't that make racism a natural human trait? Wouldnt "curing" something that people "are", according to you, be unnatural?

Think before you answer please.

i made it unnecessarily simplistic because i couldn't be bothered with another of these "i'm not racist, i just want to keep the blood pure" threads. racism isn't necessary and has no foundation in rational thought and yet, it along with other unfounded prejudices, is the cause of all the problems associated with diversity, not diversity itself. education is the cure, plus a healthy dose of ridicule.

It doesn't surprise me.
Just another point for us Cultural Globalists.
Work towards creating one world culture (internet) and much of the problems in the world would subside.

I'm confused as to why I need to be told people are racist...

And if "people are racist" wouldn't that make racism a natural human trait?


No, and no part of Infinite Revolution's response makes any such claim. Please avoid baseless strawmen.



Think before you answer please.

Yes, please do. ;)

It doesn't surprise me.
Just another point for us Cultural Globalists.
Work towards creating one world culture (internet) and much of the problems in the world would subside.

How romantic :rolleyes:

It doesn't surprise me.
Just another point for us Cultural Globalists.
Work towards creating one world culture (internet) and much of the problems in the world would subside.

sounds hellish

The study does not take into account that racially diverse communities tend to be poorer. They are too busy working and making a living then to do volunteer work. And since poor people tend to commit crimes more, then the neighborhoods are obviously not going to be as safe. And why would a poor person pay attention to politics when they are busy working 12 hours a day?

The study does not take into account that racially diverse communities tend to be poorer. They are too busy working and making a living then to do volunteer work. And since poor people tend to commit crimes more, then the neighborhoods are obviously not going to be as safe. And why would a poor person pay attention to politics when they are busy working 12 hours a day?

Full of win!

<insert OP here>

I would strongly suggest reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

You are jumping to a conclusion, that diversity results in poor civic life, because you are assuming that coorelation implies causation. In reality, there are any number of other possible unconsidered variables or explaination can shed light on the coorelation observed. The most obvious one has already been described by other posters: clinging to homogeneity in the situation of heterogeneous society (or "racism" as other posters sum it up). If this is the case, and if people could be convinced to let go of their homogeneity, one may indeed end up with a diverse and healthy civic society.

The other problem is that one is drawing a conclusion from one study. Show me the results of the peer review process, including past research, new research, and lots of discussion therein. If one study was good enough, we could "prove" any old damn thing.

As my stats prof is so fond of saying, we don't change the world based upon one study.

If it survives the stuff that is going to be tossed at it, then it begs the question whether it is better to look at the symptoms and try to fix those (i.e. getting people to vote and/or volunteer) to keep the strengths or open up the very big can 'o worms called cultural assimilation.

That can has a lot of problems in it and hasn't been used all that well in the past either.

Starvation is a problem because people need food to live, cure the need to eat and starvation, along with all the associated misery, goes away.

If we could cure the need to breathe oxygen too, people could live in the seas like fish and all the problems associated with huge population density would vanish overnight.


Because, of course, the physiological dependencies of nutrition or respiration and racism are totally the same kind of phenomenon and thus comparable like this.

Apples and elbows.

I knew that article looked familiar: RO already tried this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531402)

Because, of course, the physiological dependencies of nutrition or respiration and racism are totally the same kind of phenomenon and thus comparable like this.

Apples and elbows.

It must be nice to still be young and naive.

I knew that article looked familiar: RO already tried this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531402)

Yep. Same shit, different pro-assimilation, pro-uniformity poster.

I would strongly suggest reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

You are jumping to a conclusion, that diversity results in poor civic life, because you are assuming that coorelation implies causation.

Thanks for pointing this out. Seems some people are awfully eager to jump the gun.

It must be nice to still be young and naive.

It is. Mainly because the old and shrewd only have ad hominem diversions to rely on.

Alas. :)

It must be nice to still be young and naive.

mmm Gotta love ageism.

The study does not take into account that racially diverse communities tend to be poorer. They are too busy working and making a living then to do volunteer work. And since poor people tend to commit crimes more, then the neighborhoods are obviously not going to be as safe. And why would a poor person pay attention to politics when they are busy working 12 hours a day?
Study got pwnd.

So what?

Starvation is a problem because people need food to live, cure the need to eat and starvation, along with all the associated misery, goes away.

If we could cure the need to breathe oxygen too, people could live in the seas like fish and all the problems associated with huge population density would vanish overnight.

Get real.

Don't you think I'd be happier with gills?

*crosses arms*

It is. Mainly because the old and shrewd only have ad hominem diversions to rely on.

Alas. :)

One day you'll figure it out.

One day you'll figure it out.

Good god I hope not.

It must be nice to still be young and naive.

do you ever have an argument?

i made it unnecessarily simplistic because i couldn't be bothered with another of these "i'm not racist, i just want to keep the blood pure" threads. racism isn't necessary and has no foundation in rational thought and yet, it along with other unfounded prejudices, is the cause of all the problems associated with diversity, not diversity itself. education is the cure, plus a healthy dose of ridicule.

Or- as I sometimes say when I get really pissed off at all the problems in the world- we wait until we develop time-travel and sufficiently advanced nanotechnology, then we go back to before the earliest homonids left Africa and unleash the nanobots and have them build a wall confining humanity to that continent. Then in the new timeline, *everyone* would be black Africans, there'd be significantly less cultural variation/strife thanks to geographic isolation and most of the planet's environment would still be in its natural state.

Problems solved.

*Edit* Yes, I know I spelled Harvard wrong. That's probably why I'm not there. But on a serious note, I typed this really fast because I'm about to go out. So sue me.

The downside of diversity
A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?




http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/04/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=1

Well....I think it's something I and many people I know have been saying forever. What do you guys think?

1. He's from Harvard for Pete's sake. If there are any cloud-cuckoo land ivory towers left in the world, they're located in Ivy League universities.

2. While, in the short-run, diversity may cause problems, in the long-run, it's healthy. Like outcrossing purebred animals - it gives vitality and protection from dangers of (cultural) inbreeding.

3. This was done a couple of weeks ago. He was a short-sighted idiot then, that hasn't changed.

4. Why are we spending money on this?

If we could cure the need to breathe oxygen too, people could live in the seas like fish and all the problems associated with huge population density would vanish overnight.

.... Fish 'breathe' oxygen...

4. Why are we spending money on this?You have a problem with funding research based on logical fallacies? I thought you were all for diversity :p

Anyway, dear Americans, if you want your peoples to participate in governing your country, there's a few simple and painfully obvious things you can do.

Ban private funding of candidates and political campaigns.
Stop applauding people for working multiple jobs, and imprison the politicians who created a society in which such an abomination is necessary.
Start teaching your children about your nation's political system, what it's used for, and how it could be used.

Well....I think it's something I and many people I know have been saying forever. What do you guys think?

People say a lot of things, and a lot of it is shite. This report was mentioned here before by RO, and much like him you are trying to insist that its 'colours' are the same as those atop your own mast.

The study does not take into account that racially diverse communities tend to be poorer. They are too busy working and making a living then to do volunteer work. And since poor people tend to commit crimes more, then the neighborhoods are obviously not going to be as safe. And why would a poor person pay attention to politics when they are busy working 12 hours a day?

I would strongly suggest reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

You are jumping to a conclusion, that diversity results in poor civic life, because you are assuming that coorelation implies causation. In reality, there are any number of other possible unconsidered variables or explaination can shed light on the coorelation observed. The most obvious one has already been described by other posters: clinging to homogeneity in the situation of heterogeneous society (or "racism" as other posters sum it up). If this is the case, and if people could be convinced to let go of their homogeneity, one may indeed end up with a diverse and healthy civic society.

The other problem is that one is drawing a conclusion from one study. Show me the results of the peer review process, including past research, new research, and lots of discussion therein. If one study was good enough, we could "prove" any old damn thing.

^ that.

Let us underline a different point from your chosen article

The study is part of a fascinating new portrait of diversity emerging from recent scholarship. Diversity, it shows, makes us uncomfortable -- but discomfort, it turns out, isn't always a bad thing. Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam's work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.

Let us underline a different point from your chosen article
Yes, I see that. So it comes down to sacrificing community, culture and comfort for progress, it seems.

Yes, I see that. So it comes down to sacrificing community, culture and comfort for progress, it seems.

You're a right wing American. Presumably Disney could pump out some new 'culture' for you within a week.

Well....I think it's something I and many people I know have been saying forever. What do you guys think?The article states that the discomfort may be beneficial, as well as stating that this study does not look at the medium or long term.

You're an American. Presumably Disney could pump out some 'culture' for you within a week.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, thats not true.

Disney have "coloureds" in their stuff now so that wouldnt do him at all.

Congratulations, he showed racism is counter to having good civil relations. Imagine that.

You're a right wing American. Presumably Disney could pump out some new 'culture' for you within a week.
Nice sneak fix at hiding your blanket anti-Americanism, rat.

You just put right wing in there because you think it doesnt sound bad if you attack conservatism, but we both know that you don't care if it's right wing at all...just America in general and it's culture is what you are attacking.

Lame and pathetic.:rolleyes: Don't try to cover it up next time....I saw it before the edit.:rolleyes:

The article states that the discomfort may be beneficial, as well as stating that this study does not look at the medium or long term.
Yes, but I think that it's important to address the question that the article poses. Should we sacrifice comfort, community and culture for progress? The answer probably lies somewhere between, I'm not sure though.


:rolleyes:
I agree.

Congratulations, he showed racism is counter to having good civil relations. Imagine that.

Indeed. Should we pull out the Captain Obvious award?

Of course, if people would stop isolating themselves from others just because those others look a little different, we could all learn a great deal from each other and have wonderfully active communities.


Yes, but I think that it's important to address the question that the article poses. Should we sacrifice comfort, community and culture for progress? The answer probably lies somewhere between, I'm not sure though.

I don't see how the article poses that question. It seems to me that the question is, "Should we sacrifice bigotry for healthy communities?"

It would seem that the answer would quite obviously be, "Yes."

The reason for the observations isn't, "Diversity causes problems." It's, "People don't want to deal with other people who are different, so they isolate themselves, and that causes problems."

I would strongly suggest reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

You are jumping to a conclusion, that diversity results in poor civic life, because you are assuming that coorelation implies causation. In reality, there are any number of other possible unconsidered variables or explaination can shed light on the coorelation observed. The most obvious one has already been described by other posters: clinging to homogeneity in the situation of heterogeneous society (or "racism" as other posters sum it up). If this is the case, and if people could be convinced to let go of their homogeneity, one may indeed end up with a diverse and healthy civic society.

The other problem is that one is drawing a conclusion from one study. Show me the results of the peer review process, including past research, new research, and lots of discussion therein. If one study was good enough, we could "prove" any old damn thing.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Well, I probably would have just posted the wiki link. But yeah, study shows correlation. Nothing else.

Racial diversity is bad? :confused:

I would suggest looking into the history of Venice.

The reason for the observations isn't, "Diversity causes problems." It's, "People don't want to deal with other people who are different, so they isolate themselves, and that causes problems."Sure, it's just like buying stock - that is, if you knew you were gonna get rich doing it. Obviously one should hestitate and think thrice about investing in that case. In fact, it'd probably be a terrible idea. After all, who wants to own burgerking tomorrow if it means one less cheeseburger today?

Fucking humans. We really do deserve each other, don't we?

Sorry, thats not true.

Disney have "coloureds" in their stuff now so that wouldnt do him at all.

What? Disney has always used the color red in their animation. *nods*

What? Disney has always used the color red in their animation. *nods*They're Commie-Muslim-Pinko-Fascists! Kill 'em!!!

You're a right wing American. Presumably Disney could pump out some new 'culture' for you within a week.

*pssst* You know where the animation stories came from right?

Yes, but I think that it's important to address the question that the article poses. Should we sacrifice comfort, community and culture for progress? The answer probably lies somewhere between, I'm not sure though.I think there is alot more at play here than the report itself shows...for example, the most ethnically diverse areas are immigrant neighborhoods, such as the area I live in. This is a bohemian, student, korean, and brazilian neighborhood. The bohemian and student groups mingle, but I don't mix much with the koreans and brazilians (except those I work with)...I don't think it is entirely discomfort, but language bariers.
On the flip side, less diverse neighborhoods tend to be those who have the time and resources to engage in activities with their neighbors.

We also see higher mobility in immigrant neighborhoods: people are constantly moving out and moving in as they enter the country or gain the affluence to leave the poorer neighborhoods.

I'm not entirely sure that the issues discussed are actually directly related to the diversity. This may be a case of causeation and correlation being directly related, but there are simply too many variables for me to be convinced.

additionally, the diversity and discomfort have bred some of our greatest senses of community. Here in Boston, with our massive Irish population, we all unite on St. Patricks Day (actually, around here, it becomes something of a week long celebration). The entire city, regardless of income, race, religion, ethnicity, politics, etc. swarm to Southie for the parade and the bars, so much so that it is one of Bostons cultural identifiers, enough to bring people from the British Isles here to celebrate a "real" St. Patricks Day.


I agree.

Amazing that they will give a blanket comment about Americans (or, with the edit, Right Wing Americans), and not notice the hypocricy inherent in their comment.

additionally, the diversity and discomfort have bred some of our greatest senses of community. Here in Boston, with our massive Irish population, we all unite on St. Patricks Day (actually, around here, it becomes something of a week long celebration). The entire city, regardless of income, race, religion, ethnicity, politics, etc. swarm to Southie for the parade and the bars, so much so that it is one of Bostons cultural identifiers, enough to bring people from the British Isles here to celebrate a "real" St. Patricks Day.


Hairy arsed drunken savages who can't pass a car without putting a bomb under it or taking a piss up against it. Send them back, I say, until they learn to shave their asses like the rest of us.

Nice sneak fix at hiding your blanket anti-Americanism, rat.

You just put right wing in there because you think it doesnt sound bad if you attack conservatism, but we both know that you don't care if it's right wing at all...just America in general and it's culture is what you are attacking.

Lame and pathetic.:rolleyes: Don't try to cover it up next time....I saw it before the edit.:rolleyes:

But there are actually decent Americans....Its just that you aren't one of them. Just like theres decent people amongst humanity, (excepting you and your snot nosed high school racism once more).

In a way, this is the Lefties' long, unpopular war.

Yes, there are costs to promoting diversity. Existing social structures, community activities and institutions may weaken or dissolve.

But then, there is one essential difference between promoting diversity and going to war with Iraq:

We never said it was going to be easy.

We never said that racism and prejudice can be stamped out in six weeks. And we have been clear with you from the beginning that stamping out discrimination will mean an end to white privilege: we told you that you might have to give some things up.

Is our public life somewhat less robust than that of ancient Athens? Well, that should be no surprise. What else were they going to do while a class of slaves did all the work?

He neglects the great positive of diversity - that is progress and innovation.

Actually, he doesn't. It was Atlantian Islands who twisted the proffessor's finding to suit his own personal agenda. Looking at the article, we see this:

The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.

So, it is better to look at this article as nre piece of evidence in a large pile of evidence that helps to describe how diversity affects our societies. It would be foolish to assume that there were no adverse effects to multiculturalism. Apparently, this scholar has found one of those effects.

The study does not take into account that racially diverse communities tend to be poorer. They are too busy working and making a living then to do volunteer work. And since poor people tend to commit crimes more, then the neighborhoods are obviously not going to be as safe. And why would a poor person pay attention to politics when they are busy working 12 hours a day?

Actually, it does, according to the author:

After releasing the initial results in 2001, Putnam says he spent time "kicking the tires really hard" to be sure the study had it right. Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents -- all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have.

"People would say, 'I bet you forgot about X,'" Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. "There were 20 or 30 X's."

But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital.


Yes, I see that. So it comes down to sacrificing community, culture and comfort for progress, it seems.

That is a false proposition, as we are not forced to choose one over the other. We can have both. Not to mention that your question has nothing to do with the article, as the study does not deal with loss of culture, nor does it discuss community health in the long term. As for comfort, it explicitly states that a lack of comfort is responsible for the energetic progress of urban centers. Good. I hope multiculturalism makes people uncomfortable. Especially people like you, Atlantian Islands.

The reason for the observations isn't, "Diversity causes problems." It's, "People don't want to deal with other people who are different, so they isolate themselves, and that causes problems."

Indeed, and I would even add that when they do eventually deal with those other different people, the result is far more dynamic and creative than if they had never met them at all.

Here's a couple of closing quotes for the OP, from his article:

Meanwhile, by drawing a portrait of civic engagement in which more homogeneous communities seem much healthier, some of Putnam's worst fears about how his results could be used have been realized. A stream of conservative commentary has begun -- from places like the Manhattan Institute and "The American Conservative" -- highlighting the harm the study suggests will come from large-scale immigration. But Putnam says he's also received hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted language. "It certainly is not pleasant when David Duke's website hails me as the guy who found out racism is good," he says.

How thrilled do you think he would be if he saw this thread?

And finally...

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," he writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

One obvious factor I wouldn't be suprised to have been brushed over, and it would be all too depressing if it was:

Most diverse neighbourhoods are urban as that's where immigrants go, and as is the case in most urban areas with a lot of people, they don't really know each other so of course there isn't such a strong sense of community. Would that have been taken into consideration perhaps? It's a very obvious factor.

Hairy arsed drunken savages who can't pass a car without putting a bomb under it or taking a piss up against it. Send them back, I say, until they learn to shave their asses like the rest of us.
Again, I say: :rolleyes:
But there are actually decent Americans....Its just that you aren't one of them. Just like theres decent people amongst humanity, (excepting you and your snot nosed high school racism once more).

And yet, your initial comment, as I quoted before your edit, was directed at ALL Americans, not just right wing Americans (which, you'd be surprised to find, are not all bigots or racists. Wide brush and all...)

So what?

Starvation is a problem because people need food to live, cure the need to eat and starvation, along with all the associated misery, goes away.

If we could cure the need to breathe oxygen too, people could live in the seas like fish and all the problems associated with huge population density would vanish overnight.

Get real.Are you ACTUALLY comparing racist attitudes to the need to eat and breathe oxygen? Really?

That's the most racist thing I've heard in years... and I have a tendency to provoke it.

Are you ACTUALLY comparing racist attitudes to the need to eat and breathe oxygen? Really?

That's the most racist thing I've heard in years... and I have a tendency to provoke it.

I think you're reading it wrong. He's not saying that a racist attitude is needed for life like food and oxygen. What he's saying is that it's nice to say "well, we just need to get rid of racism!" but in reality, that is as feasible as getting rid of the need for food or oxygen.

I think you're reading it wrong. He's not saying that a racist attitude is needed for life like food and oxygen. What he's saying is that it's nice to say "well, we just need to get rid of racism!" but in reality, that is as feasible as getting rid of the need for food or oxygen.

I'm fairly certain it's much more feasible than that.

I think you're reading it wrong. He's not saying that a racist attitude is needed for life like food and oxygen. What he's saying is that it's nice to say "well, we just need to get rid of racism!" but in reality, that is as feasible as getting rid of the need for food or oxygen.I know. That's exactly the view I'm criticizing.

It is not "feasible" to get rid of the need for food or oxygen because these needs are deeply rooted in our biological natures. Indeed, having rid ourselves of these needs we might debate whether we should still be considered the same species.

To say that destroying racism is as difficult as ridding ourselves of such needs is effectively to say that it is impossible.

And that is, in fact, the most racist thing I've heard in some time.

I think you're reading it wrong. He's not saying that a racist attitude is needed for life like food and oxygen. What he's saying is that it's nice to say "well, we just need to get rid of racism!" but in reality, that is as feasible as getting rid of the need for food or oxygen.


You win the August Award for Reading Comprehension, congratulations!

You'll go far in life.

I'm fairly certain it's much more feasible than that.

That definitely remains to be seen.

I would wager that before we eliminate 'racism' from human nature, we will have developed some biotechnology letting people get energy from photosynthesis or breathe through gills.

That definitely remains to be seen.

I would wager that before we eliminate 'racism' from human nature, we will have developed some biotechnology letting people get energy from photosynthesis or breathe through gills.

There are a whole lot more people living without being racist than there are people living without food or oxygen.

Actually, he doesn't. It was Atlantian Islands who twisted the professor's finding to suit his own personal agenda. Looking at the article, we see this:

I'm glad it took me 30 seconds of scanning a post to come to the same conclusion as a Harvard professor's years of study then.

Another example of an academic trying to create a scandal to promote his paper due to the necessities of peer-related articles as a means of assessing academic relevance.

Everything has an agenda these days.

There are a whole lot more people living without being racist than there are people living without food or oxygen.

And a whole lot more people living without stealing and killing than with - doesn't mean theft and murder aren't and won't continue to be big problems.

And a whole lot more people living without stealing and killing than with - doesn't mean theft and murder aren't and won't continue to be big problems.

Of course not. But no one was arguing that it won't. The difference is that, unlike eating and breathing, racism is not a necessary part of the human condition. It can be fought and overcome. We may never stamp it out completely, but we can certainly marginalize it.

And a whole lot more people living without stealing and killing than with - doesn't mean theft and murder aren't and won't continue to be big problems.When racism is as relatively uncommon and unimportant as murder in modern states, I'll actually be rather satisfied that we've destroyed it as a significant social institution.

And yet, your initial comment, as I quoted before your edit, was directed at ALL Americans, not just right wing Americans (which, you'd be surprised to find, are not all bigots or racists. Wide brush and all...)

One would have though the addition of the caveat would answer the question....However, as you like it.

There are a whole lot more people living without being racist than there are people living without food or oxygen.You make me laugh.

People discriminate other people constantly regardless of their position on racism.

Racism is an inherent quality deriving from our...well...ourselves: The way we percieve another person and world to be...As long as physical appearances, smells, textures, colors, clothing, social standing, family relations, society, culture, religion and your ego matter there will be racism in a form or another.

My suggestion is that we should embrace and acknowledge our differences and work towards benevolent and constructive discrimination instead of 'SAY NO TO RAC/AGE/WEIGHT/SEXISM AND ANGIRLY PROTEST AGAINST ANYTHING THAT HINTS TOWARDS IT' propaganda which is patently misleading and very counterproductive: It doesn't help the minority, majority, the ---ist or yourself if you just dismiss the other point of view as something that should non-exist 'coz you said so.

Well thank you for your non productive and unintelligent reply.

And if "people are racist" wouldn't that make racism a natural human trait? Wouldnt "curing" something that people "are", according to you, be unnatural?

Think before you answer please.

Yeah, Infinite probably believes that homosexuals can be "cured" as well. :rolleyes:

What? Disney has always used the color red in their animation. *nods*

Just to check, are you Eut, and in being so, still alive?