For the history buffs, is there an example of a genuinely "diverse" population building and enjoying a successful civilization? From what I've seen, when there's a critical mass of diversity things tend to get worse and less efficient rather than better. DIE departments in both government and corporations seem to be unproductive tumours that leech resources and time from departments with purpose.
What I want to know is if "diversity is our strength" is an assertion with no evidence.
Typically economic crossroads would be very diverse while also being very successful. This could mostly be attributed to the wealth generated from being a trade hub.
historic San Francisco and New York are prime examples of this. When you break ethnicity down by actual ethnicity and not just skin color, these cities were extremely diverse when they were founded and throughout history. While they might not have been the safest cities in the world, there's a reason they became the economic powerhouses that they are today. The decay only set in when leftist policies cause prices to skyrocket and welfare to proliferate.
There could be a small element where a wider cultural diversity, in that kind of situation, yields a wider variety in products, goods, services, etc., but that is very much contingent on those cultures actually promoting good, useful, positive habits and interactions.
I'm reasonably certain that hypothetical positive results of that sort though are pretty uncommon, even in the wide range of historical examples one can look at. Especially when said immigrants are imported because they have nowhere else to go (refugees) or because of political plays, particularly since either of these kinds of instances tend to import them in larger numbers than could offer any benefit.
given their geographic location, the only way they could avoid diversity is through force. doing so would have stifled trade to the point where they would not become the hubs that they were destined to be.
New York: Irish, Italian, English, German, Nordic, and others. The farther back in history you go, the more distinct they would be. especially around America's birth, each of the ethnic heritages of europe had very distinct cultures and customs.
San Francisco: LOTS of Asians as well as europeans.
The Romans, if you consider 'diversity' to mean more than just skin color. Their empire brought together:
Latins
Italians (NOT the same as the OG Latin Romans, peoples like the Samnites, Sardinians or Etruscans spoke different languages and organized themselves quite differently compared to the Republic or Principate)
Greeks
Gauls & other Celts (Britons, Rhaetians, Celtiberians, etc.)
Iberians (not to be confused with the Celtiberians, who were a distinct populace from pre-Indo-European Iberian peoples like the Turdetanians and Aquitani/Basques)
Illyrians
Thracians
Dacians
Africans (the North African peoples weren't black - those called Numidians/Moors/Libyans were Berbers, the Carthaginians were of mixed Semitic and Berber ancestry, and the Egyptians were their own thing entirely)
Remaining Anatolian peoples, ex. the Isaurians
Syrians (NOT Arabs, they were Aramaic-speakers and their descendants are today's Syriac-speaking populations - Arabs didn't move en masse into Mesopotamia or the Western Levant until the 7th century Islamic invasions)
And even some Jews (Titus' second-in-command at the siege of Jerusalem was a Jew for example) and Germans (Rome's German provinces roughly covered modern Belgium & the Rhineland, and one of the men who could've saved Rome in its twilight if he hadn't gotten assassinated by the Senate was Stilicho, a Romanized Vandal). The Romans' downfall had more to do with constant backstabbing & civil wars and less with 'diversity', even the migrating Teutons generally took to Romanitas like fish to water.
Aside from the example of Stilicho up there, the barbarian successor kingdoms like Francia & Gothic Spain quickly forgot their native tongues in favor of local Romance dialects and adopted Roman law, customs & Christianity pretty quickly. Even Alaric, the guy who sacked Rome in 410, was trying to get high office in the Roman army and only sacked the city because the Senate massacred his soldiers' families after their coup against Stilicho and then kept trying to backstab him during negotiations despite (or because of) him constantly destroying their armies in battle.
Not that I have experienced, though I have honestly not looked very hard. There is a burden in knowing, and it is difficult to unsee when you have seen, though I am not championing ignorance by any means.
Empires can have diverse subjects and still last. It tends to require authoritarianism to keep people in line though. That's exactly what you see in the American Empire where white identity is repressed.
Pre-1917 USA had a distinct German speaking culture, whether it was bilingual families living among others, or separate communities of which only the Amish persisted past the World Wars. Taking Native Americans out the equation (they're a separate topic), early America was compatible with multi-culturalism since it was underpopulated, harsh, and scarce (i.e. underdeveloped). As with fashion, pop-culture, wealthy families (2nd and 3rd generations often squander wealth), etc; pioneers and first adopters are stronger, more independent, and intrinsically motivated. Multi-culturalism doesn't work when postive-rights and other forms of social weakness and hard coercion take root. Blacks weren't an endemic problem until Great Society welfare, along with weaponized identity politics; one of many tactics malicious extroverts use to acquire power. American Indian reservations suck only because they have no sovereignty. Legal Mexican immigrants don't have the destructive effect on social capital (and socio-econoimc ecosystem) that illegals do.
Well, slavery involved diversity, and a nation with "willing" slaves (as in, ones who obsequiously work and don't revolt ever, likely through "diverse" religious education indoctrinating them to never rebel while diversely indoctrinating their owners to never free them) will be more successful than a nation without them. So... That's technically a diversity-is-our-strength thing.
On Harvard professor Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone), his attempt to rehabilitate his findings on multiculturalism's apparent failure, and low trust communities.
Ethnic enclaves were the worst thing that ever happened to this country, all it did is cement that you don’t have to be “American” to live in America. Democrats pounced on this with CRT which is just thinly veiled racial supremacism of the minorities. That’s why they have the collective of the most tribal cultures in the country collectively grouped. They want the big boogeymen gone and then society will collapse into even more infighting as the other “minority” cultures vie for dominance. Everything from skyrocketing crime rates, lowering of the average lifespan, increased healthcare costs, etc are due to the mass proliferation of ethnic enclaves. The greatest span of American ingenuity was when we were doing, and coasting off the result of naturalization, where immigrants had to adapt their names, culture, and language to be allowed citizenship.
—was so explosive that for the last half decade he hadn’t dared announce it “until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it ‘would have been irresponsible to publish without that.’”
Academics cover up research when it doesn’t suit their political objectives?
I don't want to live in a "vibrant" community.
Aka "going to explode".
For the history buffs, is there an example of a genuinely "diverse" population building and enjoying a successful civilization? From what I've seen, when there's a critical mass of diversity things tend to get worse and less efficient rather than better. DIE departments in both government and corporations seem to be unproductive tumours that leech resources and time from departments with purpose.
What I want to know is if "diversity is our strength" is an assertion with no evidence.
Typically economic crossroads would be very diverse while also being very successful. This could mostly be attributed to the wealth generated from being a trade hub.
historic San Francisco and New York are prime examples of this. When you break ethnicity down by actual ethnicity and not just skin color, these cities were extremely diverse when they were founded and throughout history. While they might not have been the safest cities in the world, there's a reason they became the economic powerhouses that they are today. The decay only set in when leftist policies cause prices to skyrocket and welfare to proliferate.
But they're not successful because they're diverse. The success came from the location, and the original people in charge.
There could be a small element where a wider cultural diversity, in that kind of situation, yields a wider variety in products, goods, services, etc., but that is very much contingent on those cultures actually promoting good, useful, positive habits and interactions.
I'm reasonably certain that hypothetical positive results of that sort though are pretty uncommon, even in the wide range of historical examples one can look at. Especially when said immigrants are imported because they have nowhere else to go (refugees) or because of political plays, particularly since either of these kinds of instances tend to import them in larger numbers than could offer any benefit.
Indeed, but they are also successful despite being diverse. The point is that diversity does not determine success one way or the other.
they could've been even more successful without diversity
impossible.
given their geographic location, the only way they could avoid diversity is through force. doing so would have stifled trade to the point where they would not become the hubs that they were destined to be.
What were the ethnicity breakdowns in "historic San Francisco and New York"?
It was still almost all white Europeans iirc.
New York: Irish, Italian, English, German, Nordic, and others. The farther back in history you go, the more distinct they would be. especially around America's birth, each of the ethnic heritages of europe had very distinct cultures and customs.
San Francisco: LOTS of Asians as well as europeans.
Yeah but they all shared very similar cultural values.
Comparing that to modern day diversity, which just means a lot of black and brown people, doesn't make sense.
not remotely true.
I said very similar, which is definitely true.
That is a good question. We keep getting told that diversity is our strength but is there any real evidence of that?
The Romans, if you consider 'diversity' to mean more than just skin color. Their empire brought together:
And even some Jews (Titus' second-in-command at the siege of Jerusalem was a Jew for example) and Germans (Rome's German provinces roughly covered modern Belgium & the Rhineland, and one of the men who could've saved Rome in its twilight if he hadn't gotten assassinated by the Senate was Stilicho, a Romanized Vandal). The Romans' downfall had more to do with constant backstabbing & civil wars and less with 'diversity', even the migrating Teutons generally took to Romanitas like fish to water.
Aside from the example of Stilicho up there, the barbarian successor kingdoms like Francia & Gothic Spain quickly forgot their native tongues in favor of local Romance dialects and adopted Roman law, customs & Christianity pretty quickly. Even Alaric, the guy who sacked Rome in 410, was trying to get high office in the Roman army and only sacked the city because the Senate massacred his soldiers' families after their coup against Stilicho and then kept trying to backstab him during negotiations despite (or because of) him constantly destroying their armies in battle.
they're not including you when they say "our strength"
Much like "our democracy"
Diversity is a strength when it comes to union busting!
Not that I have experienced, though I have honestly not looked very hard. There is a burden in knowing, and it is difficult to unsee when you have seen, though I am not championing ignorance by any means.
Maybe if they'd stop applying that slogan with demonstrably terrible cultures/groups in mind.
Empires can have diverse subjects and still last. It tends to require authoritarianism to keep people in line though. That's exactly what you see in the American Empire where white identity is repressed.
Pre-1917 USA had a distinct German speaking culture, whether it was bilingual families living among others, or separate communities of which only the Amish persisted past the World Wars. Taking Native Americans out the equation (they're a separate topic), early America was compatible with multi-culturalism since it was underpopulated, harsh, and scarce (i.e. underdeveloped). As with fashion, pop-culture, wealthy families (2nd and 3rd generations often squander wealth), etc; pioneers and first adopters are stronger, more independent, and intrinsically motivated. Multi-culturalism doesn't work when postive-rights and other forms of social weakness and hard coercion take root. Blacks weren't an endemic problem until Great Society welfare, along with weaponized identity politics; one of many tactics malicious extroverts use to acquire power. American Indian reservations suck only because they have no sovereignty. Legal Mexican immigrants don't have the destructive effect on social capital (and socio-econoimc ecosystem) that illegals do.
Well, slavery involved diversity, and a nation with "willing" slaves (as in, ones who obsequiously work and don't revolt ever, likely through "diverse" religious education indoctrinating them to never rebel while diversely indoctrinating their owners to never free them) will be more successful than a nation without them. So... That's technically a diversity-is-our-strength thing.
On Harvard professor Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone), his attempt to rehabilitate his findings on multiculturalism's apparent failure, and low trust communities.
Ethnic enclaves were the worst thing that ever happened to this country, all it did is cement that you don’t have to be “American” to live in America. Democrats pounced on this with CRT which is just thinly veiled racial supremacism of the minorities. That’s why they have the collective of the most tribal cultures in the country collectively grouped. They want the big boogeymen gone and then society will collapse into even more infighting as the other “minority” cultures vie for dominance. Everything from skyrocketing crime rates, lowering of the average lifespan, increased healthcare costs, etc are due to the mass proliferation of ethnic enclaves. The greatest span of American ingenuity was when we were doing, and coasting off the result of naturalization, where immigrants had to adapt their names, culture, and language to be allowed citizenship.
And those immigrants were mostly white and European, maintaining the existing demography of the nation.
Good news! Ethnic enclaves are being destroyed by busing aliens into every neighborhood.
Academics cover up research when it doesn’t suit their political objectives?
Sailer is worth a read generally, not just this essay
https://www.takimag.com/contributor/Steve%20Sailer/6/
Multiple cultures breeds racism too. If all the races can't talk or work together what happens.
Diversity and division aren't words that sound similar by coincidence. It's all about "divide and conquer" and it always was.