CDZ Which is more important: Unity or Diversity?

[IsaacNewton]

It seems to me that, despite slogans to the contrary, what has made America strong has been a commonality of values and a belief that we were Americans first and foremost. However, in recent years we have been bombarded with an greater emphasis on our differences than our similarities (as a way of dividing us into segmented groups competing with each other for a larger slice of the pie). Can the American experiment survive this fractionation, or will it face the inevitable disintegration that has befallen other attempts at pluralistic confederation?

A false dichotomy. One thing doesn't preclude the other. Greater diversity leads to a stronger body. A diverse genetic pool results in the most healthy population. A diverse workforce is a hedge against a poor economy as there are segments that will always be producing jobs.

One only need to look to who it is would profit from sowing division the most. Who is it in the society that constantly frames the 'other side' as satan, the enemy, 'unAmerican', 'not real Americans'. You will have your answer.

 

[Ima Cat]

It seems to me that, despite slogans to the contrary, what has made America strong has been a commonality of values and a belief that we were Americans first and foremost. However, in recent years we have been bombarded with an greater emphasis on our differences than our similarities (as a way of dividing us into segmented groups competing with each other for a larger slice of the pie). Can the American experiment survive this fractionation, or will it face the inevitable disintegration that has befallen other attempts at pluralistic confederation?

IM NOT A BIG BELIEVER IN DICHOTOMYS. YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES: UNITY OR DIVERSITY. I THINK, AS IN ALL MATTERS, THERE IS AND OUGHT TO BE A BLEND ACROSS A SPECTRUM. SOME UNITY, LOTS OF DIVERSITY. WHY IS MY CAP KEY LOCKED?

 

[Toronado3800]

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

More babbling of memes, no refutation duly noted. Mass immigration causes bigger slums, lower standards of living, poverty, political disruption, and violence; always has, always will.

This entire country was built on mass immigration. I can see it's pointless to respond to you again. Good luck continuing to blame your personal failures on immigrants. Once upon a time, your family were immigrants, and dumb rubes blamed them for their problems. The cycle continues.

You attempt to made this about the poster is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

NOt the type of behavior you would expect from someone who thought they had a winning logical or rational argument.

I disagree. What is it, 99% of the people in the most powerful nation on Earth are immigrants? The remaining are the few natives left to live in concentrated camps so European Americans could feel as if they did not commit genocide.

Immigrants are people who move to a new nation.

People born here for multiple generations are not immigrants.

Trying to change the meaning of common words is also not the behavior of someone who thought they have a winning logical or rational argument.

OK then.

That logic circle ends goes running with "immigrants are bad", "the kids of immigrants are good"

 

[SeaGal]

One only need to look to who it is would profit from sowing division the most. Who is it in the society that constantly frames the 'other side' as satan, the enemy, 'unAmerican', 'not real Americans'. You will have your answer.

Oh gee, lemme think....ummmm...let's see....Maybe Nancy Pelosi? or...Steny Hoyer? Hey! How's about Al Gore or Harry Reid?...maybe Obama too, huh?

But you're right, you're right - just obscure folks no one listens to anyway.

 

[SeaGal]

IM NOT A BIG BELIEVER IN DICHOTOMYS. YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES: UNITY OR DIVERSITY. I THINK, AS IN ALL MATTERS, THERE IS AND OUGHT TO BE A BLEND ACROSS A SPECTRUM. SOME UNITY, LOTS OF DIVERSITY. WHY IS MY CAP KEY LOCKED?

...because your keyboard believes in uniformity?

 

[Toronado3800]

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

More babbling of memes, no refutation duly noted. Mass immigration causes bigger slums, lower standards of living, poverty, political disruption, and violence; always has, always will.

This entire country was built on mass immigration. I can see it's pointless to respond to you again. Good luck continuing to blame your personal failures on immigrants. Once upon a time, your family were immigrants, and dumb rubes blamed them for their problems. The cycle continues.

You attempt to made this about the poster is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

NOt the type of behavior you would expect from someone who thought they had a winning logical or rational argument.

I disagree. What is it, 99% of the people in the most powerful nation on Earth are immigrants? The remaining are the few natives left to live in concentrated camps so European Americans could feel as if they did not commit genocide.

100% of the entire planet are 'immigrants' by that nonsensical definition, yet for some reason the focus is only the U.S. as if it is the only country that is supposed to commit suicide and with wide open borders, i.e. just a another racist bias against whites while ignoring the rest of the planet and its history. Ours is pretty mild in comparison; other cultures on the planet wouldn't have bothered with all the fuss of setting up and financing reservations for the losers, they always just exterminate them after defeating them. The natives weren't particularly deserving of pity or have any moral high ground to stake out in the first place, its just a pseudo-intellectual fad to glamourize 'indigenous natives' and create fictional attributes for them to generate a fantasy narrative against 'modernism' and western societies, i.e. hate speech campaigns built on racism and sociopathic hatred of Christians at root. Many of the small tribes wouldn't exist at all, they would have been exterminated by other tribes if it hadn't been for American armies protecting them, just ask the Osage, for one.

This thread is about the U.S. If we want to start a thread on the effects of immigration in the Roman Empire then I am all ears.

This country completed its manifest destiny by allowing in as many Europeans as possible to immigrate, and forcibly importing some Africans.

If you want to argue about immigration after the closing of the frontier that is one issue. Combining the two is a short sighted argument which ends in wondering if with no immigration the Mayflower descendants or wherever you cut the line would have had the economic base or population to sway either or both world wars.

Far as blaming things on Christians or Americans being sociopathic, hind sight is 20/20. Honestly if you made me President in 1870 I am not sure how I would have softened westward expansion's genocidal effects. Maybe (Edit) if you made me king I could have but king...

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

 

[Toronado3800]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Tread carefully with your answer. Your children, your god and your neighbors will hear it.

Are Hispanics fundamentally different than Europeans and how?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Tread carefully with your answer. Your children, your god and your neighbors will hear it.

Are Hispanics fundamentally different than Europeans and how?

Do you have any evidence of Hispanics being equal?

 

[Toronado3800]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Tread carefully with your answer. Your children, your god and your neighbors will hear it.

Are Hispanics fundamentally different than Europeans and how?

Do you have any evidence of Hispanics being equal?

Yes.

They are a genetic mix of the Spanish who were superior to other Europeans at one time, the Incans and the Mayans.

This game has been played already. The only logical reason to believe Europeans are genetically superior is if you believe alien DNA was inserted in 1801, 1750, 1700 or whenever.

Otherwise the "best" culture in the world at any one time is all about madmen, ebbs, flows, time and the plague.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Tread carefully with your answer. Your children, your god and your neighbors will hear it.

Are Hispanics fundamentally different than Europeans and how?

Do you have any evidence of Hispanics being equal?

Yes.

They are a genetic mix of the Spanish who were superior to other Europeans at one time, the Incans and the Mayans.

This game has been played already. The only logical reason to believe Europeans are genetically superior is if you believe alien DNA was inserted in 1801, 1750, 1700 or whenever.

Otherwise the "best" culture in the world at any one time is all about madmen, ebbs, flows, time and the plague.

So, why are Hispanic nations so behind?

Was Spain ever a top intellectual power of Europe?

I'm quite certain during the Renaissance Italy, Poland, and Germany were ahead of Spain by a wide margin in intellectual contributions.

 

[Toronado3800]

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Tread carefully with your answer. Your children, your god and your neighbors will hear it.

Are Hispanics fundamentally different than Europeans and how?

Do you have any evidence of Hispanics being equal?

Yes.

They are a genetic mix of the Spanish who were superior to other Europeans at one time, the Incans and the Mayans.

This game has been played already. The only logical reason to believe Europeans are genetically superior is if you believe alien DNA was inserted in 1801, 1750, 1700 or whenever.

Otherwise the "best" culture in the world at any one time is all about madmen, ebbs, flows, time and the plague.

So, why are Hispanic nations so behind?

Was Spain ever a top intellectual power of Europe?

I'm quite certain during the Renaissance Italy, Poland, and Germany were ahead of Spain by a wide margin in intellectual contributions.

Poland, Germany in 1600 while the Muslim hybrid Spaniards ruled the western world and was Italy a real country then or are we talking some city state arrangement of Papal power?

We should be talking about the Ottomans or Qing Chinese.

Also remember the Renaissance you mentioned is the Renaissance of what, European genetics which were great from 500 BC to 450 AD but sucked until 1450? No, it was political happenstance, a hoard from Asia, the fall of an empire, and some plague like I said earlier.

Here is a neat Euro-Centric view of history but it still gets the point across:

Interactive World History Atlas since 3000 BC | GeaCron

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Tread carefully with your answer. Your children, your god and your neighbors will hear it.

Are Hispanics fundamentally different than Europeans and how?

Do you have any evidence of Hispanics being equal?

Yes.

They are a genetic mix of the Spanish who were superior to other Europeans at one time, the Incans and the Mayans.

This game has been played already. The only logical reason to believe Europeans are genetically superior is if you believe alien DNA was inserted in 1801, 1750, 1700 or whenever.

Otherwise the "best" culture in the world at any one time is all about madmen, ebbs, flows, time and the plague.

So, why are Hispanic nations so behind?

Was Spain ever a top intellectual power of Europe?

I'm quite certain during the Renaissance Italy, Poland, and Germany were ahead of Spain by a wide margin in intellectual contributions.

Poland, Germany in 1600 while the Muslim hybrid Spaniards ruled the western world and was Italy a real country then or are we talking some city state arrangement of Papal power?

We should be talking about the Ottomans or Qing Chinese.

Also remember the Renaissance you mentioned is the Renaissance of what, European genetics which were great from 500 BC to 450 AD but sucked until 1450? No, it was political happenstance, a hoard from Asia, the fall of an empire, and some plague like I said earlier.

Here is a neat Euro-Centric view of history but it still gets the point across:

Interactive World History Atlas since 3000 BC | GeaCron

Actually the genes for Europeans might have become smarter since the Iron Age.

Eurogenes Blog: We're probably smarter than our Bronze and Iron Age ancestors

But, there were massive population differences.

The plague disproportionately hit the Mediterranean regions, which bought down their populations in comparison to Northern Europeans.

While Mesolithic Europeans nearly went extinct from the Ice Age, the Near-East could build up agriculture, which furthered their population growth.

Eurogenes Blog: European foragers were almost wiped out by the ice age

So, the Near-East had a head start.

Besides, the Near-Easterners who founded agriculture had a good deal of Villabruna related European ancestry.

Eurogenes Blog: Villabruna cluster =/= Near Eastern migrants

 

[Picaro]

This thread is about the U.S. If we want to start a thread on the effects of immigration in the Roman Empire then I am all ears.

you made the generalization, not me, so don't snivel when it gets answeredand you don't like it and then jump back to demanding 'being specific'.

This country completed its manifest destiny by allowing in as many Europeans as possible to immigrate, and forcibly importing some Africans.

And like in Hollywood is was all positive and wonderful and everybody ended up living in big houses and had lots of fun forever after. It was all good, cuz 'Diversity n Stuff'!. Yes, we've all heard the platitudes and selective narratives. They aren't facts or reality, they're selective half-truths and propaganda, mostly delusional.

If you want to argue about immigration after the closing of the frontier that is one issue.

Pick whatever time period you want; I referred to mass immigration all across our history; if you think cherrypicking little windows of time will change the results go ahead and give it a shot.

Combining the two is a short sighted argument which ends in wondering if with no immigration the Mayflower descendants or wherever you cut the line would have had the economic base or population to sway either or both world wars.

Mass immigration isn't the same as 'no immigration', or' restricted and selective immigration' , but I can see why you would want to avoid the inconvenient stuff that belies the happy 'inclusiveness' narrative. As for WW II, we could have had 10 times the population we had then, and we would still have effectively fielded close to what we did at the time; the difference would have been a 99% poverty rate and an unstable political environment which more than likely would have kept us out altogether. In any case there were the Brits, Free French, Soviets, the Indian colonials, etc. all in the war and we didn't to have any more than we did at the time, so this isn't a real point. Manpower we had plenty of on the Allied side, way more than enough.

Far as blaming things on Christians or Americans being sociopathic, hind sight is 20/20. Honestly if you made me President in 1870 I am not sure how I would have softened westward expansion's genocidal effects. Maybe (Edit) if you made me king I could have but king...

That's the origin of those Cold War propaganda narratives in the first place; it's a deliberately misleading fake ploy to demonize white people and the Xian influence; it's meant to undermine and create divisions and disorder. It isn't factual or even partly accurate. Gullible people still believe it and try to sell it.

 

[Picaro]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Mestizos mostly not; hispanics not a real problem. Cubans do well, many PRs do too, as do some Haitians, Columbians, and the other more 'pure' hispanics do fine. Mexicans and Central Americans are demographic nobody likes or wants around, especially other South American and Caribbean ethnic groups. They're despised and hated by every other South American latino cultures; has to do with that wonderful Aztec legacy, the western hemisphere's version of Islam. The more European the culture is, the more acceptable it is.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Mestizos mostly not; hispanics not a real problem. Cubans do well, many PRs do too, as do some Haitians, Columbians, and the other more 'pure' hispanics do fine. Mexicans and Central Americans are demographic nobody likes or wants around, especially other South American and Caribbean ethnic groups. They're despised and hated by every other South American latino cultures; has to do with that wonderful Aztec legacy, the western hemisphere's version of Islam. The more European the culture is, the more acceptable it is.

Puerto Ricans don't do well on the whole, they are actually poorer than Mexicans are in the U.S.A.

 

[Toronado3800]

This thread is about the U.S. If we want to start a thread on the effects of immigration in the Roman Empire then I am all ears.

you made the generalization, not me, so don't snivel when it gets answeredand you don't like it and then jump back to demanding 'being specific'.

OK, lets find some common ground. The OP typed "America" three times in his paragraph so I am focused on America.

This country completed its manifest destiny by allowing in as many Europeans as possible to immigrate, and forcibly importing some Africans.

And like in Hollywood is was all positive and wonderful and everybody ended up living in big houses and had lots of fun forever after. It was all good, cuz 'Diversity n Stuff'!. Yes, we've all heard the platitudes and selective narratives. They aren't facts or reality, they're selective half-truths and propaganda, mostly delusional.[/quote]

I agree. It was not always great. Irish, Italian, Polish immigrants were all the dredge of society at one time and there were white vs white problems where no one more apparently different was to fight against. This is an ongoing problem with humanity I agree.

If you want to argue about immigration after the closing of the frontier that is one issue.

Pick whatever time period you want; I referred to mass immigration all across our history; if you think cherrypicking little windows of time will change the results go ahead and give it a shot.[/quote]

Show me the negative effect of the great Irish immigration or any of them if you must. Maybe I missed it. I will give you that absorbing 10 million unskilled people can be a drag on society if you give me the fact that removing illegals from California farms and Tyson Chicken will help our economy in the long run.

Combining the two is a short sighted argument which ends in wondering if with no immigration the Mayflower descendants or wherever you cut the line would have had the economic base or population to sway either or both world wars.

Mass immigration isn't the same as 'no immigration', or' restricted and selective immigration' , but I can see why you would want to avoid the inconvenient stuff that belies the happy 'inclusiveness' narrative. As for WW II, we could have had 10 times the population we had then, and we would still have effectively fielded close to what we did at the time; the difference would have been a 99% poverty rate and an unstable political environment which more than likely would have kept us out altogether. In any case there were the Brits, Free French, Soviets, the Indian colonials, etc. all in the war and we didn't to have any more than we did at the time, so this isn't a real point. Manpower we had plenty of on the Allied side, way more than enough.[/quote]

A line must be drawn I agree. 50 million immigrants a year is obviously not permissible. If you think the Russians and Brits had the Germans in 1942 it is a theory but modern Europe is very happy every GI was there at Anzio and Normandy.

Far as blaming things on Christians or Americans being sociopathic, hind sight is 20/20. Honestly if you made me President in 1870 I am not sure how I would have softened westward expansion's genocidal effects. Maybe (Edit) if you made me king I could have but king...

That's the origin of those Cold War propaganda narratives in the first place; it's a deliberately misleading fake ploy to demonize white people and the Xian influence; it's meant to undermine and create divisions and disorder. It isn't factual or even partly accurate. Gullible people still believe it and try to sell it.[/QUOTE]

OK, let's cut away political talk. Did the Europeans eliminate the Native Americans in what is now the United States or is that propaganda?

 

[Picaro]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Mestizos mostly not; hispanics not a real problem. Cubans do well, many PRs do too, as do some Haitians, Columbians, and the other more 'pure' hispanics do fine. Mexicans and Central Americans are demographic nobody likes or wants around, especially other South American and Caribbean ethnic groups. They're despised and hated by every other South American latino cultures; has to do with that wonderful Aztec legacy, the western hemisphere's version of Islam. The more European the culture is, the more acceptable it is.

Puerto Ricans don't do well on the whole, they are actually poorer than Mexicans are in the U.S.A.

I don't live in New York, so I can only go by the hispanics here; Puerto Ricans do better than Mexicans, all non-Meixcan latinos do, Cubans usually do the best. As I mentioned, mestizos are the worst demographic; being 'Hispanic' covers a lot of ground, and not all of them are the same as mestizos from Mexico. My wife is Hispanic, her family's ancestors were among the first to get land grants here; they married other Hispanics, Germans, and Italians, no indians or mestizos; they do as well or better than any white ethnic group does, and so do others like them.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

This thread is about the U.S. If we want to start a thread on the effects of immigration in the Roman Empire then I am all ears.

you made the generalization, not me, so don't snivel when it gets answeredand you don't like it and then jump back to demanding 'being specific'.

OK, lets find some common ground. The OP typed "America" three times in his paragraph so I am focused on America.

This country completed its manifest destiny by allowing in as many Europeans as possible to immigrate, and forcibly importing some Africans.

And like in Hollywood is was all positive and wonderful and everybody ended up living in big houses and had lots of fun forever after. It was all good, cuz 'Diversity n Stuff'!. Yes, we've all heard the platitudes and selective narratives. They aren't facts or reality, they're selective half-truths and propaganda, mostly delusional.

I agree. It was not always great. Irish, Italian, Polish immigrants were all the dredge of society at one time and there were white vs white problems where no one more apparently different was to fight against. This is an ongoing problem with humanity I agree.

[/QUOTE]

Poland, and Ireland were colonized, and oppressed, while Southern Italians were under a new state, which didn't invest in it's more rural Southern regions.

But, ultimately these White Catholics became part of a core of educated, high income America by the 1970's, or even earlier.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Mass immigration has always been bad for the U.S., for immigrants as well as natives. It was one of the main causes of the Civil War and the end of the first Republic. The above soapbox narrative is as ignorant and stupid as they always are.

"Yeah immigration has always just been terrible for the U.S.," he typed from the most powerful country in the world, that was built by immigrants, while living in the most peaceful period in the history of humankind.

Yeah, but those immigrants were mostly White, do you think Hispanic immigrants will be an asset to this country?

Mestizos mostly not; hispanics not a real problem. Cubans do well, many PRs do too, as do some Haitians, Columbians, and the other more 'pure' hispanics do fine. Mexicans and Central Americans are demographic nobody likes or wants around, especially other South American and Caribbean ethnic groups. They're despised and hated by every other South American latino cultures; has to do with that wonderful Aztec legacy, the western hemisphere's version of Islam. The more European the culture is, the more acceptable it is.

Puerto Ricans don't do well on the whole, they are actually poorer than Mexicans are in the U.S.A.

I don't live in New York, so I can only go by the hispanics here; Puerto Ricans do better than Mexicans, all non-Meixcan latinos do, Cubans usually do the best. As I mentioned, mestizos are the worst demographic; being 'Hispanic' covers a lot of ground, and not all of them are the same as mestizos from Mexico. My wife is Hispanic, her family's ancestors were among the first to get land grants here; they married other Hispanics, Germans, and Italians, no indians or mestizos; they do as well or better than any white ethnic group does, and so do others like them.

I live in suburban New York, and no Puerto Ricans aren't doing well, what so ever, a lot of them live off of welfare, and in public housing.

Actually Puerto Ricans are one of New York's poorest ethnic groups, even behind African Americans.