The Good Old Days....but for whom?

[NiftyNiblick]

Laws to codify against racial discrimination are NOT reasonably challenged.
They have in some instances proven to be necessary for everybody to have equal status under the law and equal opportunity.
I stipulate to that totally.

Let's assume that access to education and to rewarding career paths is not blocked,
even if said access requires legislative mandates.

That's also reasonable.

None of that, however, explains the benefits of diversity.
Separate but equal is intolerable as a legal standard.
We probably all agree on that.
If it occurs naturally, however, what's lost to those involved?

"American," after all, refers only to a nationality, not an ethnicity.
I'm an American by paperwork.
23 and Me, however, says that I'm an Italian by DNA.

If I was happy living in an American city's Italian neighborhood,
and that neighborhood character dissolved naturally,
well, too bad for me. Everything doesn't last forever,
and people have a right to buy and sell property if both parties are so inclined.

But what was missing in the ethnic clustering?
What was gained by the resulting diversity?

America's social regressiveness is the direct result of our lack of solidarity that comes from our multi-culturalism.
Homogeneous nations do far more things collectively.
We don't have to be of any particular ethnicity to recognize that.

It's not that diversity makes things better.
It's that we are diverse as a matter of fact,
and thus have no choice but to make it work for all of us.
I DO favor making it work,
but I still have no understanding of what makes diversity better.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

Laws to codify against racial discrimination are NOT reasonably challenged.
They have in some instances proven to be necessary for everybody to have equal status under the law and equal opportunity.
I stipulate to that totally.

Let's assume that access to education and to rewarding career paths is not blocked,
even if said access requires legislative mandates.

That's also reasonable.

None of that, however, explains the benefits of diversity.
Separate but equal is intolerable as a legal standard.
We probably all agree on that.
If it occurs naturally, however, what's lost to those involved?

"American," after all, refers only to a nationality, not an ethnicity.
I'm an American by paperwork.
23 and Me, however, says that I'm an Italian by DNA.

If I was happy living in an American city's Italian neighborhood,
and that neighborhood character dissolved naturally,
well, too bad for me. Everything doesn't last forever,
and people have a right to buy and sell property if both parties are so inclined.

But what was missing in the ethnic clustering?
What was gained by the resulting diversity?

America's social regressiveness is the direct result of our lack of solidarity that comes from our multi-culturalism.
Homogeneous nations do far more things collectively.
We don't have to be of any particular ethnicity to recognize that.

It's not that diversity makes things better.
It's that we are diverse as a matter of fact,
and thus have no choice but to make it work for all of us.
I DO favor making it work,
but I still have no understanding of what makes diversity better.

Diversity is awesome just from a food standpoint. I'm lucky enough to live near a military base where vets that go to Korea have brought back tons of wives and by extension their families. Several great Korean BBQ places in town and a few markets to get REAL kimchi not the pussy store bought stuff.

That's just one small part of why diversity is something to be treasured.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Laws to codify against racial discrimination are NOT reasonably challenged.
They have in some instances proven to be necessary for everybody to have equal status under the law and equal opportunity.
I stipulate to that totally.

Let's assume that access to education and to rewarding career paths is not blocked,
even if said access requires legislative mandates.

That's also reasonable.

None of that, however, explains the benefits of diversity.
Separate but equal is intolerable as a legal standard.
We probably all agree on that.
If it occurs naturally, however, what's lost to those involved?

"American," after all, refers only to a nationality, not an ethnicity.
I'm an American by paperwork.
23 and Me, however, says that I'm an Italian by DNA.

If I was happy living in an American city's Italian neighborhood,
and that neighborhood character dissolved naturally,
well, too bad for me. Everything doesn't last forever,
and people have a right to buy and sell property if both parties are so inclined.

But what was missing in the ethnic clustering?
What was gained by the resulting diversity?

America's social regressiveness is the direct result of our lack of solidarity that comes from our multi-culturalism.
Homogeneous nations do far more things collectively.
We don't have to be of any particular ethnicity to recognize that.

It's not that diversity makes things better.
It's that we are diverse as a matter of fact,
and thus have no choice but to make it work for all of us.
I DO favor making it work,
but I still have no understanding of what makes diversity better.

In response to your first sentence; THE HELL THEY'RE NOT!

Just look at all the case laws regarding the Civil Rights Acts (of which our MAGA infused Supreme Court has recently weakened via Voter's Rights), the nearly annual cases of "red-lining" brought by the ACLU to various state supreme courts.

These are just 2 examples of how those opposed to equal rights on all levels for all American citizens are constantly taking legal efforts.

That is why the fight must continue.

Until you can fully understand and acknowledge that, the rest of your screed is not worth examining.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Taichiliberal is getting more like Doc Dutch every day in his inability to comprehend simple English.

When I said that laws to codify against racial discrimination were not reasonably challenged,
I meant,
it should have been obvious,
that it is not a reasonable thing to challenge them,
not that they're never challenged.

Then he goes on and on about why we need forced integration through statute,
but he never approaches the subject of why diversity is a benefit.

It was already conceded that we're diverse as a matter of fact so we have to make it work.
That may be what he wants to talk about, but it's not what I've been talking about.

I want to talk about why it's better to be diverse at the cost of solidarity
than to be able to do things collectively as homogeneous nations seem to be able to do.

I'm not talking about his civil rights and liberties.
I'm supporting no cause intended to impede them,
but they're not at the forefront of my concerns either.

Nor do I apologize for white people having had "good old days" in which he couldn't share.
I wasn't at fault for that, and won't be made to feel guilty about it.

To summarize, we're diverse whether it's good or bad, that's not going to change,
and we must use legislation to make it work if it won't work without it.

However, we see the problems caused by diversity,
not from the perspective of any one ethnicity
but from the perspective of all of them.

Now somebody needs to outline the advantages of diversity and how it's supposed to be strength.
It doesn't seem to make a lot of people from any ethnic group happy.

Even if we're all equal under the law and have equal opportunity,
and I fully concede that these goals must be met for the sake of justice,
is being a multicultural nation actually benefitting us in any way?

This is not to disparage any ethnic group,
nor to blame any ethnic group for our not having solidarity.
Nor is it to deny that non-white ethnic groups have faced unfair challenges
and that we're all responsible for correcting that,
with the majority of the burden going to Euro-Americans in many cases.


The topic which Taichiliberal doesn't want to discuss,
and I don't know why as it doesn't disparage any particular race,
is

HOW does diversity make us better when homogeneous nations all appear to function more smoothly?
It's not an argument for or against it.
It's what we've got, like it or not.
But how is it a strength as so many claim?
Thus far, nobody is benefitting from it
except me when I eat Chinese food.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Taichiliberal is getting more like Doc Dutch every day in his inability to comprehend simple English.

When I said that laws to codify against racial discrimination were not reasonably challenged,
I meant,
it should have been obvious,
that it is not a reasonable thing to challenge them,
not that they're never challenged.

Then he goes on and on about why we need forced integration through statute,
but he never approaches the subject of why diversity is a benefit.

It was already conceded that we're diverse as a matter of fact so we have to make it work.
That may be what he wants to talk about, but it's not what I've been talking about.

I want to talk about why it's better to be diverse at the cost of solidarity
than to be able to do things collectively as homogeneous nations seem to be able to do.

I'm not talking about his civil rights and liberties.
I'm supporting no cause intended to impede them,
but they're not at the forefront of my concerns either.

Nor do I apologize for white people having had "good old days" in which he couldn't share.
I wasn't at fault for that, and won't be made to feel guilty about it.

To summarize, we're diverse whether it's good or bad, that's not going to change,
and we must use legislation to make it work if it won't work without it.

However, we see the problems caused by diversity,
not from the perspective of any one ethnicity
but from the perspective of all of them.

Now somebody needs to outline the advantages of diversity and how it's supposed to be strength.
It doesn't seem to make a lot of people from any ethnic group happy.

Even if we're all equal under the law and have equal opportunity,
and I fully concede that these goals must be met for the sake of justice,
is being a multicultural nation actually benefitting us in any way?

This is not to disparage any ethnic group,
nor to blame any ethnic group for our not having solidarity.
Nor is it to deny that non-white ethnic groups have faced unfair challenges
and that we're all responsible for correcting that,
with the majority of the burden going to Euro-Americans in many cases.


The topic which Taichiliberal doesn't want to discuss,
and I don't know why as it doesn't disparage any particular race,
is

HOW does diversity make us better when homogeneous nations all appear to function more smoothly?
It's not an argument for or against it.
It's what we've got, like it or not.
But how is it a strength as so many claim?
Thus far, nobody is benefitting from it
except me when I eat Chinese food.

Whenever jokers like you with an exaggerated belief in their own intelligence is adequately challenged or subject to critical thinking that does not support their stance, you get the diatribe of pure self aggrandizing, revisionist supposition and conjecture as Nifty does here.

Let me remove the cornerstones of his latest diatribe:

" ... I meant it should have been obvious..."

If you can't convey in writing what is on your mind in terms that the general reading audience will perfectly understand, don't be surprised if they discern your point of view from what they read. This "what I meant to say" stuff you now put forth won't cut it, as you are now adjusting your stance to deter from the accuracy of the original criticism. Simply put, YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN YOUR MIND, but others don't. What's "obvious" to you may not be to others. Hell, I learned that in English Composition LONG time ago.

But this next quote if the topper:

Then he goes on and on about why we need forced integration through statute,
but he never approaches the subject of why diversity is a benefit.



For one who is consistently touting his Italian heritage, Nifty either forgets or ignores the historical fact that "forced integration" made it possible for the Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Russian and other European immigrants and their descendants to move into any neighborhood they wanted (and/or could afford) WITHOUT having to "anglicize" their surname. For the black, brown, red, tan and yellow folk, a little push from the ACLU was needed as well.

The benefits? How about AMERICANS being treated equally under the law and Constitution? How about a removal of the old "armed camp" mentality of urban & suburban "ethnic neighborhoods" of old? How about the deconstruction of the "separate by equal" myth? Mind you, it's all about what PEOPLE WHO PAY THEIR TAXES WANT TO DO WITHOUT BREAKING THE LAW. Case in point: you have Levittown in Long Island, NY ... the original charters designated that no houses were to be sold to non-white folk. Hell, the architecture regarding public transportation routes to the famous Jones Beach was specifically done to make it difficult for folks from black and brown neighborhoods to get there. MATTERS OF FACT, MATTERS OF HISTORY that you can easily research.

So yeah, law abiding tax payers exercising the same rights as everyone else? A benefit to society economic wise, social wise, morally and ethically.

You don't like it? LEAVE THE COUNTRY! No one will stop you. One of the perks of being an American...you can go where you want to go.

So once again, your house of cards falls down.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Taichiliberal is obviously a complete asshole.

He STILL doesn't even approach the gist of the topic.

He speaks of diversity as a remedy to grievances, both legitimate and imagined,
and completely misses the point that in homogeneous nations without substantial ethnic diversity,
there are no major population sections being aggrieved.

The whole point here is that even if nobody is being aggrieved or put at an unfair disadvantage,
and if each of our diverse ethnic groups were on equal footing,
both socially and economically,
how would being diverse be an advantage over being homogeneous?

I'm not even arguing that it wouldn't.

I'm simply seeking examples of how it would,
when it seems that even if we were all on equal footing,
we don't look as if we would have
inter ethnic solidarity that is comparable to the solidarity experienced in homogenous cultures.

It's the homogeneous cultures, after all,
that have the universal health care, the modern public transportation, and the fair access to education
that we still might not have if equal opportunity and equality under the law,
goals that we both want,
were fully achieved.

Don't even try to answer, Taichiliberal, as the topic seems to be conceptually over your head.

 

[leaningright]

 

[cawacko]

LOL!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Whenever jokers like you with an exaggerated belief in their own intelligence is adequately challenged or subject to critical thinking that does not support their stance, you get the diatribe of pure self aggrandizing, revisionist supposition and conjecture as Nifty does here.

Let me remove the cornerstones of his latest diatribe:

" ... I meant it should have been obvious..."

If you can't convey in writing what is on your mind in terms that the general reading audience will perfectly understand, don't be surprised if they discern your point of view from what they read. This "what I meant to say" stuff you now put forth won't cut it, as you are now adjusting your stance to deter from the accuracy of the original criticism. Simply put, YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN YOUR MIND, but others don't. What's "obvious" to you may not be to others. Hell, I learned that in English Composition LONG time ago.

But this next quote if the topper:

Then he goes on and on about why we need forced integration through statute,
but he never approaches the subject of why diversity is a benefit.



For one who is consistently touting his Italian heritage, Nifty either forgets or ignores the historical fact that "forced integration" made it possible for the Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Russian and other European immigrants and their descendants to move into any neighborhood they wanted (and/or could afford) WITHOUT having to "anglicize" their surname. For the black, brown, red, tan and yellow folk, a little push from the ACLU was needed as well.

The benefits? How about AMERICANS being treated equally under the law and Constitution? How about a removal of the old "armed camp" mentality of urban & suburban "ethnic neighborhoods" of old? How about the deconstruction of the "separate by equal" myth? Mind you, it's all about what PEOPLE WHO PAY THEIR TAXES WANT TO DO WITHOUT BREAKING THE LAW. Case in point: you have Levittown in Long Island, NY ... the original charters designated that no houses were to be sold to non-white folk. Hell, the architecture regarding public transportation routes to the famous Jones Beach was specifically done to make it difficult for folks from black and brown neighborhoods to get there. MATTERS OF FACT, MATTERS OF HISTORY that you can easily research.

So yeah, law abiding tax payers exercising the same rights as everyone else? A benefit to society economic wise, social wise, morally and ethically.

You don't like it? LEAVE THE COUNTRY! No one will stop you. One of the perks of being an American...you can go where you want to go.

So once again, your house of cards falls down.

Taichiliberal is obviously a complete asshole.

He STILL doesn't even approach the gist of the topic.

He speaks of diversity as a remedy to grievances, both legitimate and imagined,
and completely misses the point that in homogeneous nations without substantial ethnic diversity,
there are no major population sections being aggrieved.

The whole point here is that even if nobody is being aggrieved or put at an unfair disadvantage,
and if each of our diverse ethnic groups were on equal footing,
both socially and economically,
how would being diverse be an advantage over being homogeneous?

I'm not even arguing that it wouldn't.

I'm simply seeking examples of how it would,
when it seems that even if we were all on equal footing,
we don't look as if we would have
inter ethnic solidarity that is comparable to the solidarity experienced in homogenous cultures.

It's the homogeneous cultures, after all,
that have the universal health care, the modern public transportation, and the fair access to education
that we still might not have if equal opportunity and equality under the law,
goals that we both want,
were fully achieved.

Don't even try to answer, Taichiliberal, as the topic seems to be conceptually over your head.

Taichiliberal is obviously a complete asshole.

He STILL doesn't even approach the gist of the topic.

He speaks of diversity as a remedy to grievances, both legitimate and imagined,
and completely misses the point that in homogeneous nations without substantial ethnic diversity,
there are no major population sections being aggrieved.



So as the objective reader can clearly see, all Nifty does is take the long road to reach the SAME assertions he stated before. He does this by IGNORING every historically accurate point I put forth that deconstructs his blather. Then he just rambles on with his comparatives, supposition and conjecture laden screed, cumulating in a repeat of self aggrandizing statement that no answer has been given to his original "question".

Nifty is quite comfortable in his personal prejudices, experiences...and thus blows mucho smoke when his mental comfort zone meets facts & logic that don't set well.

One can't debate logically, factually or rationally with such a mindset such as Nifty's. Like the title of this OP suggests, the "good old days" is indeed a subjective statement.

And the band played on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL!

Sorry, you've both lost me. Is this commentary, and if so responding to whom?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Sorry, who are you responding to?

 

[Flash]

Nope. Are Republicans saying legacy students aren't smart enough to get into college on their grade point average? Seems so, as the SCOTUS WON'T TOUCH THAT WITH A TEN FOOT POLE!

Were legacy admissions challenged in court? The recent case was based on the 14th Amendment equal protection clause which clearly applies to race. It does not apply to legacy admissions who are not a protected class.

 

[Diesel]

So now all the variations of conservatism can jump for joy because SCOTUS just put the screws to Affirmative Action. Of course, they're perfectly fine with "legacy" students, and won't DARE touch the military on this (they need that cannon fodder in these volunteer times)!

And the band played on.

Cuz you know, nobody understands systemic racism better than 5 white people and an Uncle Tom.

 

[Diesel]

Have no idea what you are talking about

You don't know what a legacy enrollment is?

 

[Diesel]

You still haven’t explained why blacks hate Asians.
Even if they don’t, why do academic institutions blatantly discriminate against Asians while giving preferential treatment to blacks?
It’s not like Asians haven’t historically been discriminated against. They have. And still are.
Maybe you can explain .

The basis of affirmative action was to start to correcting for the hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, segregation, torture, and discrimination, to name a few reasons. Asians most certainly do face discrimination, but the experiences of Blacks and Asians in the US are not comparable.

 

[cawacko]

Sorry, you've both lost me. Is this commentary, and if so responding to whom?

When done in good faith I think the discussion you two are having is an interesting/good one about homogenous countries vs more diverse ones and the positives/challenges each faces.

 

[leaningright]

Sorry, who are you responding to?

What Cawacko said … and I’m just here to watch … er … ah … read what you two have to say. And Cawacko’s response to mine was that he is going to join me.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Spare me your revisionist rhetoric (Dems control everything in the country...no Southern Strategy, no Jim Crow, no redlining...etc., etc.). What this does is removal a partial federal mandate, but does not prevent folk of good will, honesty and common sense from letting their state educational system regress to the subliminal and subconscious racism that ruled for so long.

Da fuq are you talking about?

 

[ptif219]

You don't know what a legacy enrollment is?

It is management showing favoritism

 

[Diesel]

It is management showing favoritism

Something like that. The SC didn't touch it and we all know why. Favoritism for Black students is unconstitutional and evil, according to certain people, but favoritism for white students with rich parents, i.e. political donors, is good to go. Conservatives continue to have a really difficult time doing anything that's not racist or in some other way discriminatory.