A good thing about America

[eloisel]

My stylist is back from his vacation back home to visit his parents in Israel. That is a good thing because my hair was beginning to look seriously awful. He's been taking care of my hair for about 10 years now and I adore him. If he weren't 10 years younger than me and happily married, I'd be all over him. Anyway, he has been in this business with a man from Lebanon all this time.

The store my Paki sweetie works at is owned by a Paki couple who employ several people from India.

The mechanic and all the employees in his shop where I take my Honda are from Vietnam. I adore Tommy. He is the most industrious person I've ever met. By 22, he not only owned a very successful auto shop, he owned a nightclub and was looking into opening a restaurant as well. When he married at 25, he bought his house outright with cash. On top of it, he is just the nicest person.

My neighbor directly across from me is from Mexico - and, yes, he and his wife and children came here legally. Everytime I go outside to do some work on the yard, he offers to help me. He is the nicest guy.

I'm lucky to live in a truly diverse neighborhood. I'm lucky that some of these people who would be fighting with each other were they living in their country of origin can be together here peacefully. In fact, we can all live peacefully with each other. That is a good thing about America.

 

[Kefka]

It's one of the most horrible things imaginable.

 

[The Question]

My stylist is back from his vacation back home to visit his parents in Israel. That is a good thing because my hair was beginning to look seriously awful. He's been taking care of my hair for about 10 years now and I adore him. If he weren't 10 years younger than me and happily married, I'd be all over him. Anyway, he has been in this business with a man from Lebanon all this time.

The store my Paki sweetie works at is owned by a Paki couple who employ several people from India.

The mechanic and all the employees in his shop where I take my Honda are from Vietnam. I adore Tommy. He is the most industrious person I've ever met. By 22, he not only owned a very successful auto shop, he owned a nightclub and was looking into opening a restaurant as well. When he married at 25, he bought his house outright with cash. On top of it, he is just the nicest person.

My neighbor directly across from me is from Mexico - and, yes, he and his wife and children came here legally. Everytime I go outside to do some work on the yard, he offers to help me. He is the nicest guy.

I'm lucky to live in a truly diverse neighborhood. I'm lucky that some of these people who would be fighting with each other were they living in their country of origin can be together here peacefully. In fact, we can all live peacefully with each other. That is a good thing about America.

Well, correct me if I'm mistaken on any of the individuals mentioned, but I think the above can be distilled into this:

The great thing about America is Americans.

 

[Kefka]

Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University's Robert Putnam, one of the world's most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it "would have been irresponsible to publish without that".

The core message of the research was that, "in the presence of diversity, we hunker down", he said. "We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us."

Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history", but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where "diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians' picnic".

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. "They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," said Prof Putnam. "The only thing there's more of is protest marches and TV watching."

British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction and Prof Putnam, now working with social scientists at Manchester University, said other European countries would be likely to have similar trends.

His 2000 book, Bowling Alone, on the increasing atomisation of contemporary society, made him an academic celebrity. Though some scholars questioned how well its findings applied outside the US, policymakers were impressed and he was invited to speak at Camp David, Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the "importing" and "exporting" societies, and that trends "have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed".

In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: "What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us."

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/printarticle.asp?Feed=FT&Date=20061008&ID=6085419

 

[The Question]

^^An unfortunate truth -- since prehistory, humans have found strength not only in numbers, against the elements and non-human predators, but strength in like numbers against human predators from outside their immediate geographical surroundings.

Multiculturalism has been an experiment in defying human nature; by and large, that experiment is failing -- badly.

 

[eloisel]

Interesting on the Harvard study. I don't find that in my neighborhood at all or even in the city at large. I'd like to know of what his research consisted.

After a quick look at his theory on social capital, I find I at least minimally agree with him, but not necessarily with the bases of his argument. Example: he believes people are not socially engaging as much as they used to. Yes, we are, but probably more often from the remoteness of our home computers than face to face across the kitchen table playing Trivial Pursuit and Spades. He also believes we aren't bridging - i.e., people aren't engaging in relationships with people that are not like them. That is definitely not true. People that might not otherwise engage with each other because of physical factors, regularly engage with each other over the internet where those factors don't have to come into play.

At least some of his opinion appears to be based on observations spanning a period of 40 plus years. I can relate to that same time span and I don't agree with his assessment. For example, when I was a child, black people and white people did not socialize - in fact, it was extremely anti-social relations. However, in this day and age, black and white people live in the same neighborhoods, shop at the same stores, drink out of the same water fountains, work side by side in professional careers, and a black person and a white person can legally marry each other. While there is room for improvement, for the most part, it is rather civil.

Where I agree with him on the social capital concept is that people seem to be forgetting how to actually be sociable. Perhaps that is because we do tend to spend more time socializing online than offline. An example of this is the sign reminding people to bathe that I see hung up at the gaming sections of the conventions I go to. Why should anyone have to be told to bathe before going out in public?

 

[The Question]

After a quick look at his theory on social capital, I find I at least minimally agree with him, but not necessarily with the bases of his argument. Example: he believes people are not socially engaging as much as they used to. Yes, we are, but probably more often from the remoteness of our home computers than face to face across the kitchen table playing Trivial Pursuit and Spades.

I don't know that I would entirely agree with this. Is online socializing really socializing? Even if we hold to a positive answer, I think it must be conceded that the quality of online socialization is significantly less than the real thing.

He also believes we aren't bridging - i.e., people aren't engaging in relationships with people that are not like them. That is definitely not true. People that might not otherwise engage with each other because of physical factors, regularly engage with each other over the internet where those factors don't have to come into play.

But this does lead to the trust barrier -- is there any point even trying to number the stories of people who engage each other in relationships (of varying degrees of intimacy) online, only to later discover that the person they thought they knew only marginally existed in the real world, if at all?

At least some of his opinion appears to be based on observations spanning a period of 40 plus years. I can relate to that same time span and I don't agree with his assessment. For example, when I was a child, black people and white people did not socialize - in fact, it was extremely anti-social relations. However, in this day and age, black and white people live in the same neighborhoods, shop at the same stores, drink out of the same water fountains, work side by side in professional careers, and a black person and a white person can legally marry each other. While there is room for improvement, for the most part, it is rather civil.

But is that due to the majority preference within those communities, or due merely to legal engineering?

Where I agree with him on the social capital concept is that people seem to be forgetting how to actually be sociable. Perhaps that is because we do tend to spend more time socializing online than offline. An example of this is the sign reminding people to bathe that I see hung up at the gaming sections of the conventions I go to. Why should anyone have to be told to bathe before going out in public?

I wonder if that kind of inconsideration toward the public is the result of overfocusing into online socialization, or actually the root cause of same.

 

[eloisel]

Is online socializing really socializing? Even if we hold to a positive answer, I think it must be conceded that the quality of online socialization is significantly less than the real thing.

True, to a point. But, not all off-line socialization is positive either.

But this does lead to the trust barrier -- is there any point even trying to number the stories of people who engage each other in relationships (of varying degrees of intimacy) online, only to later discover that the person they thought they knew only marginally existed in the real world, if at all?

That would assume that the majority of relationships online were for the purpose of mating. I don't agree that even the majority is. And, again, people in off-line relationships do lie to one another also, they just aren't able to get away with lieing about their physical appearance.

But is that due to the majority preference within those communities, or due merely to legal engineering?

No doubt legal engineering. But, government is made up of people and lawyers, despite rumors to the opposite, are people too. If we as a society at large weren't willing to make that change, even though we were forced to do so, we would as a society rise up and refuse to do so. In fact, during the Civil Rights Movement, people of all colors did rise up to demand change, to end segregation, to work towards equality. Even now, we as a society bend over backwards to be PC about people who are different than us. Consider my initial post. My barber is a Jew. My mechanic is Vietnamese. The store I shop at most often is owned by Pakistanis who also work in the store and they employ Indians. My neighbor is Mexican. I didn't mention this in the opening post, but my favorite restaurant - where I eat the most often - is owned by an Indian and the cook is black. These are all people that live and work in my neighborhood. In the old days, they wouldn't have lived in my neighborhood, and I wouldn't have done business with them or they with me. It may have taken legal engineering to get the ball rolling, but it takes society's willingness to keep it rolling.

I wonder if that kind of inconsideration toward the public is the result of overfocusing into online socialization, or actually the root cause of same.

Definitely.

That is why I minimally agree with him. We have some deficits with our social capital but not because we lack any, but because much of our capital is akin to counterfeit money.

As the cities across the country go city-wide wi-fi, maybe more people will get out of their houses. Once people are out of their houses, maybe they'll look up from their computers and see some faces they like enough to shut their computers off for a little while. Once that happens, we'll go back to playing Trivial Pursuit and Spades across the kitchen table instead of spending the majority of our free time online.

 

[eloisel]

Jack-in-the-Box is open 24 hours. That is a good thing on these times I'm up all night and at 4 am I have a need for a Supreme Croissant and Coffee but don't want to bang around in the kitchen.

 

[Gagh]

Subway.

 

[eloisel]

Apple pie is awesome. Speaking of which, I have enough Granny apples and cheddar cheese in the fridge to make a right nice pie.