a plea — diversity not a good thing!

Ethnic diversity will mean different groups of people will look different. Of course, each individual looks different, but the differences between different racial/ethnic groups of a different type. Then there are the cultural differences. And it is very possible many of these cultural differences have a genetic and biological basis, so they will never really go away.

This will have a detrimental effect on social cohession. People will not be as altruistic towards the wider community. This could have significant effects on the social and economic structure of society.

What about preserving ethnic differences? Ironically, increasing racial diversity in any particular country will eventually result in an irreversible decrease in world-wide ethnic diversity. It would be a real shame if the human species lost its unique diversity as all the ethnicities get mixed into one. Perhaps world-wide human diversity should be protected like other forms of biodiversity. Why are progressives trying so hard to preserve endangered species and habitats, but at the same time trying to destroy, through mixing, european ("caucasian") ethnicities?

I do not want to become a minority in my own country. I do not want to be a minority in my workplace, nor have my children to become a minority in their school. Even if you do not care about anything about this, there is a significant proportion of the population (at least 10 percent) that does. What about them?

And what about the children of all these different ethnicities? Will they be happy being an ethnic minority? People will not want to be their friends, and girls will not want to be their girlfriends because of how they look. This is natural and inevitable. Is it fair to them to allow them to be born into a country where they will be a minority?

Ethnic diversity will also lead to tensions, increased crime, and other problems. These problems can be avoided now, before future generations will have to struggle to deal with them in the future. Consider in the USA the Blacks, who have never fully integrated into white society, and there are still race problems and ethnic tensions. Perhaps expecting diversity to work harmoniously is just not realistic.

There are people that are denying the existence of racial differences, of course. Rather difficult for these people to completely deny any differences, in light of countless studies and research that have been done. I suppose one could try to investigate this for oneself. Indians and east Asians tend to have personalities that are more congenial to europeans than any other race. And it is also to be remembered that there is plenty of european blood mixed with those in Latin America and the Blacks in the USA. The pure blood indigenous Americans and Africans are significantly different. Africans split off at an earlier point in human evolution than any of the other races, so this might be the best place to look to examine whether racial differences exist.


Humans share between 93.5 to 98.5 percent of the same DNA as chimpanzees

Even if the differences were only in appearance, that is still a big difference. Physical appearance should not be underestimated.
http://www.politicalforum.com/race-...ects-racially-diverse-facial-appearances.html
I do not want the people who look ethnically similar to me to dissappear in the next century. It would be a great loss. Not everyone can understand, but imagine a world without any european/white people (if you are white). Would you care?
There are plenty of Africans that would not want to see Black people dissappear from the earth, or get mixed into oblivion.

Keeping different ethnicities apart greatly helps avoid mixing. People can still have free choice who they want to have sex with, but a white girl that grew up in a rural part of Russia is obviously not going to just travel to Nigeria to marry an African. And I do not think anti-miscongenation laws are a necessarily an infringement on personal liberties. What about the resulting child from such a union? Is it fair to the child to be racially mixed? The child will have more trouble fitting in with either group. Progressives naively think that all the social divissions can just be eleminated through enlightened attitudes and education. They are trying to impose a social system contrary to human nature. There are just limits to how much this works.

Do whatever else you want, whatever other political system you would impose. Make the wealthy countries help the poor countries. Anything else, just do not try to mix all the races/ethnicities together.

 

There is very limited to no diversity among human species also our looks are still changing according to our lifestyle & diet .
If you are really looking forward to preserve this diversity a good start will be to return into the caves and hunt your own food.

 

Go have a cry. What you propose is nothing short of ignorant racist discrimination. People can (*)(*)(*)(*) who ever consents in (*)(*)(*)(*)ing them. Simple as that. I dont care if blue people with wings start appearing.

The only flaw with prejudice against children is the prejudice - not the children as you outrageously assert.

 

The progressives think the problem is peoples thinking. But there could be could be no problem if it was not for the racial diversity and mixing to begin with. What you refuse to see is that much of what you call "prejudice" is a natural, and to a large extent inevitable phenomena. It is absolutely not fair to the children. And it is not fair to expect others to accomodate this diversity.

I support fairness. As for "discrimination" based on race, there are differences associated with race. I do not belive sacrificing ethnic homogenity, and the future human diversity in the world, is worth treating every individual without regard to ethnicity. Unless you are of the libertarian ideology, you are really quite a hypocrite. Progressives have no problem taking away individual liberties to make the world a "better place" - whether that is high taxation, gun control, telling a business who they can employ, or excessive environmental regulations.

 

Who are these progressives?

But the action of the prejudice is the cause of the problem. So no, the prejudice is what needs to go.

Total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Even if it were, which it isnt, it would not make it right. Furthermore it is entirely natural and inevitable that people of different races will have sex and reproduce.

Indeed so prejudice should be stamped out.

It is fair to tell them not to abuse others. If you dont like diversity, fine, but that does not give you a right to abuse others, let alone children.

No you support racist insanity.

Who cares?!? Race is no basis for discrimination and prejudice.

Why?

I am libertarian.

Irrelevant.

 

Always amusing to be reminded how the old timers used to think .
Very sad .
A few more years and , thank goodness , they will be gone .
I imagine this is the OPs Nth time repeating the same essential Post .
Probably sponsored by one of those comical White Supremacist groups .
Smack their silly bottoms and send them off to bed .

 

Better still to humiliate and destroy their ignorance by a quick dose of reasonable thought.

 

What about all those girls that are going to suffer depression because they were not born with the feminine ideal of beauty– what everyone else in the society looks like ? No, physical appearances are not to be taken light-heartedly.

If you had a job opportunity in Nigeria (where they speak english), and it was in a good neighborhood, would you move there? Supposing you were unmarried, did not have a girlfriend. Would you be happy to spend the rest of your life in Nigeria, among friendly people (for the sake of this argument let us say that it was in a wealthier area without crime or poverty) who spoke the same language as you? The only catch being that all the women would be ethnically Nigerian, all your friends, everyone around you would be Nigerian, for the rest of your life. Would you be okay with this?

Let me ask you this: If it became technologically possible to cross-breed humans with other primates, would you be in favor of it if some people wanted to have cross-bred children?

 

1. The girl should not care and can see a psychiatrist.
2. Society should change its views and
3. People should keep their notions of beauty to themselves.

Well only if:
1. The other species could consent, which I'm assuming is impossible hence this cross breeding can never happen
2. There are no serious mental or physical defects to the offspring to the extent their life is not worth living.

 

As a libertarian, presumably you would support the right of racial separatists to move away (to a place currently uninhabited), form their own communities, and keep other races out? Or would you favor the government intrude on these peoples private property and private lives?


Before we bring in huge numbers of people from other regions of the world, perhaps we should do a test first to see what will happen? For example, perhaps set aside a certain region somewhere in the world, allow whoever wants to move there to go, and then study the effects. Or look at places in other countries that have high levels of diversity? It seem irresponsible to try to have such an open policy, completely disregarding race, and not seeing what has resulted when other countries have done the same thing in the past.

 

Some people of all ethnicities are beautiful and some are plain. It is something everyone needs to accept. London has no problem with intermarriage with it's West Indian population. It is the norm.

I think here you have put your foot in your mouth. Despite always posting in a respectful manner which I do appreciate, your point is the same as those who make monkey noises at black people at Football matches.

 

What is your basis for this ridiculous claim? If you believe that we all descend from common ancestors - and I've never heard of anyone denying this fact - then you must concede that all races evolved from a common one anyway. Which means a decrease in ethnic diversity is certainly not "irreversible."

 

I am not trying to equate any particular race with primates or chimpanzees. It is just the best exaggerated example to try to illustrate my point. While many of you see absolutely no difference between different races, all can clearly see the difference between a human and a chimpanzee.

So why protect endangered species? Or endangered habitats? It is all part of the process of evolution, is it not?
I realise my ethnicity may eventually dissappear, evolve, into something else if left to itself. But my ethnicity has been around 8 to 10 thousand years, and is probably going to last another 10,000 years if it manages to survive mixing. It is not forever (just like the human species will eventually go extinct in a million years), but I would like my ethnicity to survive as long as possible.

 

If its private property, yes.

Nope, however you are advocating a violation of public space.

If you want to do that fine, but for us normal people, who dont have trillions to spend on stupid theories, we should jsut incorporate and accept these people, since racial identity means nothing in terms of liberty.

Why is it irresponsible?

 

Because of the potential effects.

What of privitised public space? If the separatist community was run more of as a commune?


The problem with libertarianism is that it dismisses extraneous effects. Even the mere presence of one person has an effect on everyone else in the surrounding area, for better or worse. (Job opportunity, potential crime, appearance of open space, congestion of busy roads, potential mating opportunities)

 

It's called the United States. You can compare the effects there as compared to other places where ethnic cleansing has taken place: let's see, there's Rwanda... (former) Yugoslavia... Nazi Germany.... I don't know how you read it, but the diversity thing is clearly superior from my perspective.

 

If the United States is any example, I think we could all safely conclude that racial diversity is bad, although apparently different ethnicities of the same race seem to get along satisfactorily. I am just saying that the United States is definitely not a good example of racial harmony, particularly the numerous lowe-income crime-ridden Black ghettos scattered throughout the country. I think there have been a few threads in the past in this forum on this subject.

Germany sprung back surprisingly quickly after the war.

What of the utopias the socialists are always claiming of Sweden and Norway? If anything, the recent ethnic diversity seems to be threatening the traditional high standards of living.

 

You are making the argument that there is a similarity between mating between our West Indians and white London people and mating between white London people and chimpanzees. If you were not you could not provide such an analogy.

 

That does not address statistical differences. There are some grasses that are taller than some trees. That does not mean trees are not taller than grass. The plain fact is that certain ethnicities are going to be considered less attractive than others by the wider society in the UK.

I do not accept. I reject; as one of the primary problems, in fact, resulting from ethnic diversity.

There will also be more complex phenomena. For example, asian females will be considered more attractive, and Black women will be considered less attractive, at least statistically. (for a discussion of this, see: http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/212513-unintended-consequences-plight-black-women.html )
That is just how things result from an ethnically diverse society. This will result in other problems. But most people will not care.

Yes, I thought this was clear. Obviously this is a slightly more extreme example, but it clearly shows my point of view.

 

The UK does not in general have your problem. That is why particularly with out West Indian population we have a very high rate of inter marriage.

 

Time to get over it ... you're not special anymore.

 

And just what about other ethnicities in your country? Are Pakistanis as sought after as romantic partners?

 

On race, no problem. - actually on a new Genetics study on Scotland - half of the people asked gave their apparent place of origin as Pakistan.....

 

You're going to use poor people as a measure of diversity's success? Anyway, your point is moot because the U.S.'s policy of tolerance and diversity has led to its becoming the world's #1 economy, #1 military power, and #1 destination for people seeking a better life. Poverty and crime exist everywhere - purging a place of some ethnic group isn't going to eliminate that.

Not the ethnically-pure Nazi Germany. Nice try.

I don't know about "utopias," but I'm sure they're wonderful places to live. Just because we embrace diversity doesn't mean we don't think a nation of whites or a nation of blacks can't also be pleasant and successful. But when people are so protective of their racial purity that they use force to exclude or deprecate other races, it's been a pretty consistent failure.

 

Yeah, and you got to come to grips with the reality that you've never been special, and that decades of receiving special interest entitlements with a willing government and constant race baiting by your titular leaders like jessie jackhole and al sharpless are not going to elevate your also-ran status one iota.