Has diversity benefited the USA?

[American]

careful your getting closer to live and let live

i might not even be the same race and religion as you

Does that matter?

 

[blarg]

Does that matter?

apparently to those who want theirs to dominate


https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...efited-usa-post1069281669.html#post1069281669

https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...efited-usa-post1069289389.html#post1069289389

 

[MrWonka]

The USA is more ethnically, racially, culturally and religiously diverse than it has ever been in our history.

Pretty sure that is not actually true at all. During the founding of the country Native Americans radically outnumbered white people. Furthermore, since almost all white people were immigrants from Europe their cultural differences were much more significant. i.e. German people were very German, Norwegian people were very Norwegian, Italians were very Italian, French people were very french... Many of them did not speak English at all. While most early settlers may have been protestants there was a much bigger more gaping divide between the different Christian sects of that day. Being Catholic was a much bigger deal than it is today. Just look at how the Irish were treated when they first started coming here. As recently as the 1950's there were many people who didn't trust JFK to be president because he was Catholic.

Today almost all white people are essentially Mutts. After two hundred years of intermixing, almost every white person in the country has some mixture of races even if they're all European.

If diversity is a good thing, then the USA should be a better country in its better condition economically and socially with people the happiest they have ever been.

And generally, I would say that is fairly true. Furthermore, most of the countries that are ahead of us in quality of life are themselves quite diverse at this point in time. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, even most of Scandinavia has their share of migrants.

In fact when I look back at our history every major problem we've had as a society has generally been caused by irrational hatred of diversity not diversity itself.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

On balance, yes.

 

[OlNate]

A society is based upon cohesion, not diversity.

I would say it a little differently: a society is based upon cohesion, through inclusion, and enriched by diversity.

 

[American]

apparently to those who want theirs to dominate


https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...efited-usa-post1069281669.html#post1069281669

https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...efited-usa-post1069289389.html#post1069289389

You're lying on both counts. Try to keep it honest please.

 

[blarg]

You're lying on both counts. Try to keep it honest please.

pretty sue i am try not to be racist or a religious nut job who wants his ways to dominate my country for your own peace of mind

 

[MSgt]

Of course, the U.S. has benefited from ethnic/racial/cultural/religious diversity.

Of America's historical missions (crush empires, globalization, etc), was the creation of the world's first and only universal nation. We have no official language and no designated national religion. We are a nation of immigrants and our population represents all the world's colors, races, cultures, and religions. Despite a history of generations looking down on new immigrants, such as the Irish, Chinese, and Italian waves, we have always lived and worked together in relative harmony. This means that we have assimilated to each other and we have a long history of programs that have have evolved to accommodate new arrivals. For the most part, and I'm acknowledging nineteenth-century aggression and warfare on Native Americans here, ethnic cleansing between peoples has never really been tolerated.

Immigration is an often overlooked feature when it comes to boasting about American prosperity and forward movement. We can see quite clearly the populations around the world that maintain monopolies on such things like religion, culture, and so on. These civilizations tend to retard their own growth and many simply stagnate. This is because they rely on the known like-minded past to define their futures. But immigration introduces new and fresh ideas into a civilization. It frees the society from conventional and traditional thought, which allows societal growth. They bring insights from other forms of governments, economic systems, and even technology. Their life experiences hold value. They bring with them their art, their music, and their literary geniuses so that they can contribute into hybrid America. And given the logistics of bringing a family across the ocean, America generally tends to receive the more intelligent, the more educated, the more hard working, and the more open-minded of people who prefer a space where such things can contribute to society (The Iranian exodus is a perfect example of this.) One might consider Europe's slow climb out of misery in the wake of spending years ethnically cleansing diversity from their individual populations and trying to organize homogeneous societies between 1933 and 1949. It's hard to create anew when everybody around you is working on the same like-minded wave length.

In terms, of religion, America contains no "holy land." There is no disputes between religions. Competition revolves around capturing new souls. And since this means making the religion appealing to potential customers, America's religions tend to be healthier. Violence is never between the religions, but between an individual upon another religion as all religions unite and condemn the individual.

The American experiment is not just about democracy. It is about proving that different people can live side-by-side and that they equally choose the nation's future. We are often criticized for our internal frictions, such as those that center around racial differences. But racial friction in America is also about overcoming a past that Europeans introduced, in which the new United States inherited and maintained for 90 more years. In keeping with the long-experienced theme of Europe, the end of slavery might have concluded with a mission to eject the former slaves as not belonging. But this didn't happen. And because immigrants come in many different colors and cultures, overcoming friction is a struggle. But the U.S. embarked on this much tougher road long ago and continues to walk it today. It's easy to declare that you have no racial issues if your entire population looks the same, eats the same thing, and worships the same god(s). But this sense of harmony comes at a price too.

 

[slick]

I will not answer the poll question directly, lest I violate strict forum rules regarding hot potato topics.

I will just say that I personally feel that a truly harmonious society is only possible when at least 90% of a nation's population are of the same ethnicity, speak the same language, and share the same cultural values. My example, of course, is Japan.

You hit the nail on the head perfectly.

Seeing that more than half of posters feel 'Yes, people are happier and the country is better than ever in history' shows that participants in
this polls views are more than one deviation from the norm.

Nationalism or more to the point Ethnonationalism continues to be & nearly always has been the world in which we live in the most powerful movement.
IIt outlasted Marxism tearing apart the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova & the Caucusus followed suite
& then went the 5 nations of Central Asia. That was not the end only the beginning, minorities inside the new nations wanted their
place in the sun & the Caucasus became the 20th century Balkans. This is just the primary example of many other breakups throughout
the world demonstrating the pull of ethnonationalism.

'Always it's Sameness that dominates! People favor friendships with those of similar backgrounds, interests & values. Despite many exceptions
the urge is almost universal, it's human nature!'

Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, forming the so called Visegrad Group, all oppose the imposition of migrants on their
territories. The four countries refuse to follow the example of their Western European neighbors whose societies have been transformed
by decades of mass immigration, accelerated by the latest wave of migrants from the Middle East and Africa.

Joined more recently by Italy & Austria now Eurosceptic nations have gained power from the Mediterranean to the Baltic & Merkel's
leadership in Europe is soon to come to an abrupt end because of her foolhardy hope that the other would join her in her attempt
to diversify Europe.

 

[slick]

Yes, diversity has benefited the US. I shudder to think where we would be as a nation if we accepted only a homogenous citizenry.

Nonsense, America overtook Britain as the greatest economic & military power in the world in the 1920's far before the
'age of diversity'. Since the age of diversity in a matter of years the USA will soon give up those titles after 100 years to
a country which is the most perfect example of homogenous citizenry.

 

[Mithros]

Nonsense, America overtook Britain as the greatest economic & military power in the world in the 1920's far before the
'age of diversity'. Since the age of diversity in a matter of years the USA will soon give up those titles after 100 years to
a country which is the most perfect example of homogenous citizenry.

With the help of the massive influx of immigrants to the US from the Civil War until WWI.

 

[Bullseye]

With the help of the massive influx of immigrants to the US from the Civil War until WWI.

How many of those snuck over the border?

 

[Xelor]

With the help of the massive influx of immigrants to the US from the Civil War until WWI.

The chart you've presented tracks precisely the wake (because your graph starts in the 1850s) of the first US Industrial Revolution and the second one, and the "digital" revolution. Each of those periods have share a key characteristic as go the factors of production: a paucity of labor. The key difference being that in the first two "revolutions," physical aptitude were what was demanded, whereas the digital one demanded mental/intellectual rather than physical ability.

 

[Mithros]

How many of those snuck over the border?

The US had open borders until the "temporary" Emergency Quota act in 1921, followed by the immigration act of 1924. Northern and Western European Americans were worried that their culture was being overtaken by undesirables from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Immigration dropped from 805,228 in 1920 to 309,556 in 1921-22. This decline contributed to a decline in population growth, one of the principle causes of the great depression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

 

[Mithros]

The chart you've presented tracks precisely the wake (because your graph starts in the 1850s) of the first US Industrial Revolution and the second one, and the "digital" revolution. Each of those periods have share a key characteristic as go the factors of production: a paucity of labor. The key difference being that in the first two "revolutions," physical aptitude were what was demanded, whereas the digital one demanded mental/intellectual rather than physical ability.

I'm not sure I'd start the digital revolution in 1970.

Also, it's likely purely a policy issue. My take would be that the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 turned off the flow of immigrants and the Immigration and Naturalization act of 1965 turned it back on.

 

[slick]

With the help of the massive influx of immigrants to the US from the Civil War until WWI.

THOSE IMMIGRANTS did help, why? The groups Jews, Irish, Catholics, Poles, Germans, Italians, Amish, Quakers, Slavs,
Greeks & Czechs were all European. all were white. almost all were Christian.
'After each wave of immigration, there were long periods little or no immigration
that gave America time to assimilate the newcomers. The immigrants of that era
attended schools where they were taught the
language, literature, history and traditions to help them assimilate. Not so anymore.

 

[enderpotato00]

For the most part, yes. However like everything, too much diversity is bad.

 

[Mithros]

THOSE IMMIGRANTS did help, why? The groups Jews, Irish, Catholics, Poles, Germans, Italians, Amish, Quakers, Slavs,
Greeks & Czechs were all European. all were white. almost all were Christian.
'After each wave of immigration, there were long periods little or no immigration
that gave America time to assimilate the newcomers. The immigrants of that era
attended schools where they were taught the
language, literature, history and traditions to help them assimilate. Not so anymore.

LOL.

The mandate for naturalized citizens to learn English didn't happen until 1921. This was due to Americans of Northern and Western Europeans who were appalled at by the immigrants from Southern and Western Europe. They were too dark, ate strange foods (like pasta, perogies, and gyros), and didn't even speak English. It was decades before they were accepted. The Jews still aren't accepted by many Americans.

There's no difference between immigration in the 1910's and the 2010s. In the 1920's nationalists cutoff the flow of immigration which reduced population growth, stifled innovation, and was a cause of the great depression.

 

[Bullseye]

The US had open borders until the "temporary" Emergency Quota act in 1921, followed by the immigration act of 1924. Northern and Western European Americans were worried that their culture was being overtaken by undesirables from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Immigration dropped from 805,228 in 1920 to 309,556 in 1921-22. This decline contributed to a decline in population growth, one of the principle causes of the great depression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Mithros]

You didn't answer my question.

How many immigrants illegally crossed the border before it was illegal for immigrants to cross the border?

Is that really hill you want to die on?

BTW...the laws of 1921 and 1924 didn't restrict Mexicans. Immigration from Mexico was 100% unrestricted until 1965. Not only was it not illegal, we encouraged it. The Bracero Program operated from 1942-1965. It intentionally brought over Mexican laborers to work on US farms due to the US labor shortage. Do you want to ask a question about the millions of people who were doing what we wanted them to do until we made what we wanted them to do illegal?

 

[Tim the plumber]

The USA is more ethnically, racially, culturally and religiously diverse than it has ever been in our history. If diversity is a good thing, then the USA should be a better country in its better condition economically and socially with people the happiest they have ever been.

Has diversity benefited the USA?

errrr.... YES!!

Why the **** do you think you are the most dynamic humanity driving socially revolutionary culturally experimental trend setting faction of the world?

 

[Xelor]

I'm not sure I'd start the digital revolution in 1970.

Also, it's likely purely a policy issue. My take would be that the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 turned off the flow of immigrants and the Immigration and Naturalization act of 1965 turned it back on.

Red:
Strictly speaking and as a matter of noting the nexus of the digital revolution and labor economics trends as manifest among the masses, I wouldn't either.

One can ably make the case that the foundations for the digital revolution were in the '50s through '70s laid, and to be sure, among the keenest engineers, mathematicians, developers, and entrepreneurs, it'd definitely begun in that score. That said, of it's "mass market" labor impact, vis a vis immigration and industry's labor needs that couldn't be adequately satisfied by the extant native labor supply, I put the start in the '80s.

 

[Xelor]

How many immigrants illegally crossed the border before it was illegal for immigrants to cross the border?

Is that really hill you want to die on?

BTW...the laws of 1921 and 1924 didn't restrict Mexicans. Immigration from Mexico was 100% unrestricted until 1965. Not only was it not illegal, we encouraged it. The Bracero Program operated from 1942-1965. It intentionally brought over Mexican laborers to work on US farms due to the US labor shortage. Do you want to ask a question about the millions of people who were doing what we wanted them to do until we made what we wanted them to do illegal?

Red:
The US had some quantity of immigrants between 5.5M and 6.5M, probably about 6M, when it first restricted immigration with the Page Act in 1875. Prior to the Page Act, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. Thus, the answer to your question is "none." (Of course, one need not know of the Page Act to know the answer to your question is "none.")

 

[slick]

errrr.... YES!!

Why the **** do you think you are the most dynamic humanity driving socially revolutionary culturally experimental trend setting faction of the world?

If diversity is so beneficial why do so many diversiphiles pay premiums to live in communities far from the loveliness of diversity!

 

[Mithros]

Red:
Strictly speaking and as a matter of noting the nexus of the digital revolution and labor economics trends as manifest among the masses, I wouldn't either.

One can ably make the case that the foundations for the digital revolution were in the '50s through '70s laid, and to be sure, among the keenest engineers, mathematicians, developers, and entrepreneurs, it'd definitely begun in that score. That said, of it's "mass market" labor impact, vis a vis immigration and industry's labor needs that couldn't be adequately satisfied by the extant native labor supply, I put the start in the '80s.

One could also say that a many of the people behind these revolutions were imported.

What about The Bracero Program. (I didn't know about it before today either) It's goal was a massive import of Mexican laborers to work on American farms from 1942-1965.