Noahpinion on race, homogeneity, assimilation and diversity
Today a blogger posted the best essay I’ve seen in rejection of the idea that diversity is inferior to homogeneity, or put more charitably, that the alt-right’s message of “diversity + proximity = war” is not sound.
View the post here.
This ties together everything I’ve been saying about immigration politics the past year or so. You can see bits and pieces of my thought process in this post and this post, but I never got around to an outright refutation. That would have been against the rules I set forth in this post.
It’s not worth trying to summarize his points because 1. Finals week is coming up and 2. he already said everything better than I can.
One of the problems with the essay is that he argues for ‘compromise theory,’ yet modern Social Justice rejects this (see ‘cultural appropriation’, various attempts at racial segregation and an extremely sensitivity to what is offensive to non-whites and thus whites must be banned from doing).
When immigrants are explicitly taught that they should not assimilate or integrate, but demand one-sided concessions from the dominant culture, it’s not surprising that white people get upset. Especially if the elite forgets about the concerns of poor whites.
Besides, compromise theory is itself an argument that homogeneity is better than diversity. After all, the claim is that you have friction until part of the diversity has been removed. So the question becomes: why not just avoid all that trouble and not let the migrants in, so you avoid that friction in the first place?
In general, the argument whether homogeneity is better or worse than diversity is rather absurd, as neither actually exist. There is no society with 100% homogeneity or one with 100% diversity. So any reasonable argument must be about the level of diversity and which kinds of diversity