Can racial and ethnic diversity make for more insular, untrusting neighbors? Harvard professor Robert Putnam answers: YES!. Boston Globe
Listen to Putnam discuss his study with Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier and Pat Buchanan. On Point
Maybe the real issues they should be looking at rise out of the 'spreading like a virus' thread?
Quote from the Boston Globe: “The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.”
First thing that pops into my mind: Aren't all American neighborhoods diverse? At the very least you have English descendants living next door to Germans, Italians, etc...
Wow. I honestly don't know how to respond to that. Sounds rather interesting, but I've got a final during that time. I'm anxious to see some of the responses on this.
the article (and research) discusses diversity in terms of ethnicity and race.
treekiller, the results seem to suggest the opposite
"In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the "contact" theory and the "conflict" theory. Under the contact theory, more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory, that proximity produces tension and discord.
Putnam's findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group."
Quilian brings up a good point. In America's past the ethnic diversity was between caucasian Europeans. That separation has been mostly blurred as people homogonized themselves as American's. For most white people their last names are the only easy way to determine where their ancestry lies.
Today's ethnic minorities need a few generations to homogonize their culture into an American culture. Become like the rest of us, if you will.
What does a homogeneous group mean in the USonian context? Just two generations ago the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, and Jews (among many others) were not considered 'white'.
Also, yesterday I spent some time in Jamaica Plain, a very diverse community Latin community. There are Hondurans, Cubans, Dominicans, Colombians, etc... Of all shades of colors and ethnicities, yet I have a suspicion that in Putnam's study they would be considered one large 'Hispanic' group.
I have a suspicion that it is not so much the diversity but the american (sub)urban experience that is the problem.
i live in chinatown in new york city and i'm white...someone has
put epoxy/cement into our locks twice in the last week so that
it's impossible to get a key in to open the door...and i have to
say that my first thought is someone doesn't want a bunch of
white people in the neighborhood.
when i walk down the streets in the neighborhood i feel pretty
conspicuous since i'm usually one of the only white people...
so i think i can kind of see putnam's point in a way...especially
in a city like new york where young middle class to upper class
people are moving everyone else farther and farther out of the
city.
this is less than a racial issue than a cultural issue. i don't particularly like white people, and i am white, but i can't see myself living in a tight knit community of Sikhs, Paks, Jamaicans, Hmong, Ethiopians, (you name the group) their groups are so insular - i hope that's the right word - and their resistance to assimilation makes it even more difficult for me to connect to them or interact....
the ideal of the melting pot has not translated to the latter half of the 20 or early part of the 21st century. new immigrants are not interested in being melted and forged into "New Americans" i think they would rather benefit from the freedom and forget about the opportuniy to contribute to the future of our culture...
xenophobia of outsiders is a major problem with much of the good ol u s of a. we fear people different from us and so homogenous enclaves have little incentive to reach out beyond their borders. 100% same and 100% diversity isn't ideal- but maybe having 3 different demographics in close proximity generates a different level of democracy/civic involvement versus having 20 fragmented groups fighting for scarce resources. Just look at the bronx. But if everybody was clones, then the community would stagnate - look at staten island.
small towns = small minds = homogeneity. big towns = cosmopolitan sophistication = diversity.
do i need to pour more gasoline on the fire or is it hot enough around here?
treekiller, I think your small town/small mind, etc...is a pretty broad generalization. I think Jay Leno and Sean Hannity's man on the street segments have demonstrated there are plenty of people in big towns with small minds, too.
actually, many small towns in indianastan are not as homogeneious as one might first think. the influx of labor from mexico and central america has changed things up somewhat. in my hometown of la porte (thazz french for all you culturati wannabeez!) my sister in law's mother is always complaining about how the "spanish" are ruining the town. once, i remarked to her "well who else wants to work in the chicken processing plant?" and then she informed that when she was little thats how the family made money, by raising and slaughtering poultry. also, goshen, indiana has the largest concentration of "hispanics" in the state.
Which I don't really agree with. I'm not even sure how sophistication can be defined in this context. I think that in a lot of cases, the racism in bigger cities is simply hidden, and that's what results in insular neighbourhoods and communities of all races (however defined).
I just moved to a very diverse neighbourhood in terms of race and economic classes. For example, a few doors down from me on each side are a mental health clinic and subsidized (read: native) housing. But half a block away are extremely expensive jewelry stores, furniture stores, restaurants, etc. I don't know if I like or dislike the diversity, but I can tell you that I do like my neighbourhood because it's got all the amenities within a few minutes walk, and the people seem pretty nice around here. What that has to do with race or economics, I can't tell you.
3. There are many diverse communities that are working just fine(they did mention Jamaica Plain)
4. Immigrants are learning English as fast or faster than previous immigrants
5. He discussed the artificial invention of terms like 'white' and how in the past how the term is used has changed pretty importantly
6. Lani Guinier is making some great points that the real problems are all over the U.S. and diverse communities are the canary-in-the-coal-mine. The fact is that live for many Americans (of all colors) is getting worse and at the same time diversity is increasing. Immigrants and diversity are not causing it (less public money + a costly war are) but they get blamed.
I thought that was a very productive discussion. I am of the opinion that, like Lani Guinier states, the tendency towards isolation is a larger american issue, and cannot be pinned on diversity alone. after all, there are exceptions to the study.
big towns = cosmopolitan sophistication = diversity.
not really...many stay in their neighborhood and distrust interlopers.
i find that diversity is currently a spatial phenomena: proximity of difference and not necessarily incorporation and mixing: i live near so many africans, african americans, dominicans, some chinese...but it takes a miracle to not feel like an alien in their presence. this is thanks to my entire social, economic and cultural history, as well as theirs. this study is also taken during a time in which diverse neighborhoods (diverse on many different levels) are becoming more commonplace, but are not yet the norm. this study in ten years may say something different.
lets make an essential distinction here: it isnot a person's race which determines their behavior, it is thier culture/ personal decisions.
Race shouldn't have any direct impact on a person's beahvior, except we impose our prejudices on people and try to force them to behave in 'racially' appropriate ways.
it's a content of charecter thing, not a color thing.
the issue is manyfold.
but it would sure help if stuying world atlas and geography was mandatory for all americans, so they can make the connection that immigrants just didn't fall off from the lesser galaxies to find dishwashing jobs only. that happens too but not only here but everywhere else. 2/3 of the world will be living in cities.
people are mainly arriving by regularly scheduled international flights, not necessarily arriving by boats to ellis island.
I feel like diversity and unity is a delicate balance America has always had to balance...
I think there are a lot of factors creating insularity (cable, driving everywhere, selfishness), lets see if we can solve those before blaming diversity
i grew up in racially diverse (poor) neighbourhood. my classmates at school for fairly bright kids all lived elesewhere (suburbia) and were mostly white. there was definitely tension growing up, especially with the natives when i was a young kid, then with the vietnamese after the war went splooty, and the guatemalans after the whatever they had down there (reagan said not a war). the wealthy folk in suburbia absolutley were not happy when they saw my friends walking around. so yeah there is tension with diversity, especially at the beginning...now, i dunno. when i was in uni my girlfriend lived most of her life in spanish community, but spoke perfect english too. some people in my family thought that was bad, that she should live her whole life like they did, in english and without guacamole...now, 20 years later, perhaps it is different...i hope so. oh and all of my best friends who were immigrants own own company and have staff...so immigration is at least good for entrepreneurial spirit...
i live in ratially homogeneous neighbourhood. iam the only white guy i know of in the area, an am pretty certain i am the only permanent resident who ain't japanese. and i speak english at home, not cuz i don't want to be absorbed by great japanese culture but rather because i want my children to speak english. i suspect many immigrants in america have the same attitude and i think i would join them in wishing a hearty fuck off to those who think assimilation is necesary.
there is little tension here, but i think if there were more white people here the tension would go up. i am not a threat. 10,000 me's would be. i am definitley isolated. by culture, if not by language. but i don't mind. isolation can be an opportunity of sorts.
interesting bit of research. worth keeping an eye on where ti goes from here...
jasoncross, i was appalled by Neal Conan's ignorance in this issue, that he kept referring to hispanics as a race (as he had guests of Indigenous and African ancestry), and that no one corrected him! Saying lighter skin and darker skin hispanics skirts the real issues of racism in the Latin American community, it is as simple as in the U.S.; Black, White, Native, except that there is a recognition of the fact that there is mixture.
But I digress, and more directly to your point, I grew up in Hialeah, FL and went to a Middle School that was 95% Latino. People got made fun of, for example, if they were Cubans (and others from the Caribbean) for coming in a raft*, if they were Central American by crossing the Rio Grande*, etc... I think it is normal for any immigrant community there are terms such as (FOB) Fresh Off the Boat. One time I heard John Stewart say that his Grandfather hated immigrants although he came from Russia(?), as he got off the boat he turned around at the others waiting and asked them to "get off his country".
It was an interesting discussion, or at least had the potential to be. But the inclusion of Pat Buchanan?!?!?! That threw the entire conversation off because every time the guy opened his mouth I wanted to scream "Shut The Fuck Up!!!". It made the discussion far more polarized and confrontational than it needed to be.
I did enjoy the perspective offered, I think by Putnam, regarding the marriage only a few decades ago that was considered "mixed" because it was between an Irish Catholic and an Italian Catholic. Our culture's relationship to these labels is constantly changing.
Also, I agree with those above who mention economics as the issue far more so than race. A middle class working neighborhood of owner-occupied homes all share enough of the same concerns that the cultural differences can be easily navigated. A meth lab next door to a wealthy lawyer is likely to cause mistrust (or, on the other hand, an enterprise opportunity).
here's an interesting diversity problem: do we hold ourselves up as role models and try to tolerate Pat Buchannan's "diversity" (try to get whatever good out of him, or pesuade him of our ideas, ignore him - but include him as one of 'us') or attack him as an "other"? doesn't it undermine our own stance to attack him?
Boston's one of the most open cities I know about, racially. Culturally, however, it's completely rigid in many ways. Anyone can emulate the 'boston brahmin' mould, of any color, race- but creed seems non-negotiable. imho.
Boston? OPEN? You must be really young. That city is one of the most racially intolerant cities in the Northeast. Need anyone be reminded of the busing problems of the late 70's or the pregnant woman murdered by a couple of "black guys" and the police turning the black community upside down, only to find out that it was the husband that did it. the husband pointed the finger at two - i think two - black men because he knew the perception in the city. the red sox the last team to have an african american player on their team, the celtic players that felt isolated by the community...i am sure there is more. There is tremendous distrust by the african american community of the police in Boston.
Here's one for you. Female castration, cab drivers refusing to drive patrons carrying alcohol because of their religious beliefs, arranged marriages, you'd probably think some third world country, but no, it's happening right here in the Twin Cities. The Somali men are angry that women protest and bring charges for the hideous castration and abuse, it's part of their religion, part of their culture they say. Bullshit. People come to this country for many reasons, but freedom to practice your inane and barbaric persecution of women is not one of them. Either be assimilated or invest in your return to your country of origin where your freedom to practice your barbaric nature is protected by your own "regime." I want none of that here. Don't get me wrong, I am not a "love or leave it" guy but this shit is insane.
[beta], your reaction is funny because you recently suggested that I burp on mommie's shoulder (u r right it's "grad school" not"gradschool")
You are right again - I wasn't even alive in the 70s - because it was almost 30 years ago ! People don't understand, Boson is very open - or at lest the academic/cultural/financial axis is, I think the blue collar neighborhoods (& police force) might be a little different - it's a wierd place, you have to talk the talk....
that somali shit is scary... i don't even want to know, Apurimac........
Putnam has always been a "NIMBY". but i think tension has more to do with class than with race, and a bit of tension is better than all quiet and dull...
I think there is a fine line between blind assimilation and blind tolerance...isn't the magic of immigration the chance for 2 cultures to reflect their good and bad sides & together become a mix of the best of both?
Obscure magazine "Ode" had an interesting take on tolerance- that it implies just not persecuting others, not explicity accepting or even learning about eachother. They suggest we 'welcome' eachother rather than 'tolerate' eachother's existence.
Aug 16, 07 5:10 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
The Downside of Diversity in American Neighborhoods
Can racial and ethnic diversity make for more insular, untrusting neighbors? Harvard professor Robert Putnam answers: YES!.
Boston Globe
Listen to Putnam discuss his study with Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier and Pat Buchanan.
On Point
The Full Report
Maybe the real issues they should be looking at rise out of the 'spreading like a virus' thread?
Quote from the Boston Globe:
“The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.”
First thing that pops into my mind: Aren't all American neighborhoods diverse? At the very least you have English descendants living next door to Germans, Italians, etc...
Wow. I honestly don't know how to respond to that. Sounds rather interesting, but I've got a final during that time. I'm anxious to see some of the responses on this.
too much homogeneity seems to be worse then too much diversity- those monocultures are insular, xenophobic, and lack mobility
i think it is an inconvenient truth, but not at all surprising.
i think it is just as much an issue of affluence than race. i'm curious whether economically diverse neighborhoods would have similar results.
...but of course race and affluence go hand in hand.
i live in an economically diverse hood. i would ask around if i wasnt afraid to go outside.
the article (and research) discusses diversity in terms of ethnicity and race.
treekiller, the results seem to suggest the opposite
"In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the "contact" theory and the "conflict" theory. Under the contact theory, more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory, that proximity produces tension and discord.
Putnam's findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group."
Quilian brings up a good point. In America's past the ethnic diversity was between caucasian Europeans. That separation has been mostly blurred as people homogonized themselves as American's. For most white people their last names are the only easy way to determine where their ancestry lies.
Today's ethnic minorities need a few generations to homogonize their culture into an American culture. Become like the rest of us, if you will.
What does a homogeneous group mean in the USonian context? Just two generations ago the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, and Jews (among many others) were not considered 'white'.
Also, yesterday I spent some time in Jamaica Plain, a very diverse community Latin community. There are Hondurans, Cubans, Dominicans, Colombians, etc... Of all shades of colors and ethnicities, yet I have a suspicion that in Putnam's study they would be considered one large 'Hispanic' group.
I have a suspicion that it is not so much the diversity but the american (sub)urban experience that is the problem.
the article says that is what putnams study was looking at.
i live in chinatown in new york city and i'm white...someone has
put epoxy/cement into our locks twice in the last week so that
it's impossible to get a key in to open the door...and i have to
say that my first thought is someone doesn't want a bunch of
white people in the neighborhood.
when i walk down the streets in the neighborhood i feel pretty
conspicuous since i'm usually one of the only white people...
so i think i can kind of see putnam's point in a way...especially
in a city like new york where young middle class to upper class
people are moving everyone else farther and farther out of the
city.
The live radio discussion just started:
http://www.wbur.org/listen/
here is the actual research if anyone is itnerested: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
the title of the thread doesnt really reflect what the research is saying.
diversity will continue to increase
short term: diversity can inhibit social capital
long term: diversity can improve social capital
the article linked in the first post also mentions how diversity in the workplace is usually a good thing for productivity.
lets just go back to the good 'ol days.
These white folk where actively participating in a popular civic function at the time; removing black folk from the area.
and that is the scariest goddamn image ive seen in a loooong time
this is less than a racial issue than a cultural issue. i don't particularly like white people, and i am white, but i can't see myself living in a tight knit community of Sikhs, Paks, Jamaicans, Hmong, Ethiopians, (you name the group) their groups are so insular - i hope that's the right word - and their resistance to assimilation makes it even more difficult for me to connect to them or interact....
the ideal of the melting pot has not translated to the latter half of the 20 or early part of the 21st century. new immigrants are not interested in being melted and forged into "New Americans" i think they would rather benefit from the freedom and forget about the opportuniy to contribute to the future of our culture...
betas a white boy in the palais
only lookin for fun...
xenophobia of outsiders is a major problem with much of the good ol u s of a. we fear people different from us and so homogenous enclaves have little incentive to reach out beyond their borders. 100% same and 100% diversity isn't ideal- but maybe having 3 different demographics in close proximity generates a different level of democracy/civic involvement versus having 20 fragmented groups fighting for scarce resources. Just look at the bronx. But if everybody was clones, then the community would stagnate - look at staten island.
small towns = small minds = homogeneity. big towns = cosmopolitan sophistication = diversity.
do i need to pour more gasoline on the fire or is it hot enough around here?
so what exactly is the point of putnam's theory? is he simply being a dick for dick's sake?
treekiller, I think your small town/small mind, etc...is a pretty broad generalization. I think Jay Leno and Sean Hannity's man on the street segments have demonstrated there are plenty of people in big towns with small minds, too.
i'm listening to the broadcast. somebody should recap.
many of these issues are clarified in the broadcast.
some major points:
1. putnam is in favor of diversity
2. studies included small and large communities
3. ...
actually, many small towns in indianastan are not as homogeneious as one might first think. the influx of labor from mexico and central america has changed things up somewhat. in my hometown of la porte (thazz french for all you culturati wannabeez!) my sister in law's mother is always complaining about how the "spanish" are ruining the town. once, i remarked to her "well who else wants to work in the chicken processing plant?" and then she informed that when she was little thats how the family made money, by raising and slaughtering poultry. also, goshen, indiana has the largest concentration of "hispanics" in the state.
I think you mean
small towns = homogeneity = small minds
and
big towns = diversity = sophistication
Which I don't really agree with. I'm not even sure how sophistication can be defined in this context. I think that in a lot of cases, the racism in bigger cities is simply hidden, and that's what results in insular neighbourhoods and communities of all races (however defined).
I just moved to a very diverse neighbourhood in terms of race and economic classes. For example, a few doors down from me on each side are a mental health clinic and subsidized (read: native) housing. But half a block away are extremely expensive jewelry stores, furniture stores, restaurants, etc. I don't know if I like or dislike the diversity, but I can tell you that I do like my neighbourhood because it's got all the amenities within a few minutes walk, and the people seem pretty nice around here. What that has to do with race or economics, I can't tell you.
the largest hmong population in the country is in milwaukee. if milwaukee doesn't say cosmopolitan i don't know what does.
3. There are many diverse communities that are working just fine(they did mention Jamaica Plain)
4. Immigrants are learning English as fast or faster than previous immigrants
5. He discussed the artificial invention of terms like 'white' and how in the past how the term is used has changed pretty importantly
6. Lani Guinier is making some great points that the real problems are all over the U.S. and diverse communities are the canary-in-the-coal-mine. The fact is that live for many Americans (of all colors) is getting worse and at the same time diversity is increasing. Immigrants and diversity are not causing it (less public money + a costly war are) but they get blamed.
I thought that was a very productive discussion. I am of the opinion that, like Lani Guinier states, the tendency towards isolation is a larger american issue, and cannot be pinned on diversity alone. after all, there are exceptions to the study.
i agree with /6 on that. i never encountered so many redneck assholes as when i lived a mile from the hahvahd yahd.
$ has more to do with it than race or ethnicity.
big towns = cosmopolitan sophistication = diversity.
not really...many stay in their neighborhood and distrust interlopers.
i find that diversity is currently a spatial phenomena: proximity of difference and not necessarily incorporation and mixing: i live near so many africans, african americans, dominicans, some chinese...but it takes a miracle to not feel like an alien in their presence. this is thanks to my entire social, economic and cultural history, as well as theirs. this study is also taken during a time in which diverse neighborhoods (diverse on many different levels) are becoming more commonplace, but are not yet the norm. this study in ten years may say something different.
you guys should try reading putnam's report.
'tis more fun to pull stereotypes out of thin air then to actually read the report.
Maybe the issue is
density=diversity=can't avoid mixing with others
low density=isolation=segregation...
lets make an essential distinction here: it isnot a person's race which determines their behavior, it is thier culture/ personal decisions.
Race shouldn't have any direct impact on a person's beahvior, except we impose our prejudices on people and try to force them to behave in 'racially' appropriate ways.
it's a content of charecter thing, not a color thing.
the issue is manyfold.
but it would sure help if stuying world atlas and geography was mandatory for all americans, so they can make the connection that immigrants just didn't fall off from the lesser galaxies to find dishwashing jobs only. that happens too but not only here but everywhere else. 2/3 of the world will be living in cities.
people are mainly arriving by regularly scheduled international flights, not necessarily arriving by boats to ellis island.
"people are mainly arriving by regularly scheduled international flights, not necessarily arriving by boats to ellis island."
NPR recently covered how the differing ways in which one comes to the US causes its own issues in communities.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12563967
I feel like diversity and unity is a delicate balance America has always had to balance...
I think there are a lot of factors creating insularity (cable, driving everywhere, selfishness), lets see if we can solve those before blaming diversity
i grew up in racially diverse (poor) neighbourhood. my classmates at school for fairly bright kids all lived elesewhere (suburbia) and were mostly white. there was definitely tension growing up, especially with the natives when i was a young kid, then with the vietnamese after the war went splooty, and the guatemalans after the whatever they had down there (reagan said not a war). the wealthy folk in suburbia absolutley were not happy when they saw my friends walking around. so yeah there is tension with diversity, especially at the beginning...now, i dunno. when i was in uni my girlfriend lived most of her life in spanish community, but spoke perfect english too. some people in my family thought that was bad, that she should live her whole life like they did, in english and without guacamole...now, 20 years later, perhaps it is different...i hope so. oh and all of my best friends who were immigrants own own company and have staff...so immigration is at least good for entrepreneurial spirit...
i live in ratially homogeneous neighbourhood. iam the only white guy i know of in the area, an am pretty certain i am the only permanent resident who ain't japanese. and i speak english at home, not cuz i don't want to be absorbed by great japanese culture but rather because i want my children to speak english. i suspect many immigrants in america have the same attitude and i think i would join them in wishing a hearty fuck off to those who think assimilation is necesary.
there is little tension here, but i think if there were more white people here the tension would go up. i am not a threat. 10,000 me's would be. i am definitley isolated. by culture, if not by language. but i don't mind. isolation can be an opportunity of sorts.
interesting bit of research. worth keeping an eye on where ti goes from here...
jasoncross, i was appalled by Neal Conan's ignorance in this issue, that he kept referring to hispanics as a race (as he had guests of Indigenous and African ancestry), and that no one corrected him! Saying lighter skin and darker skin hispanics skirts the real issues of racism in the Latin American community, it is as simple as in the U.S.; Black, White, Native, except that there is a recognition of the fact that there is mixture.
But I digress, and more directly to your point, I grew up in Hialeah, FL and went to a Middle School that was 95% Latino. People got made fun of, for example, if they were Cubans (and others from the Caribbean) for coming in a raft*, if they were Central American by crossing the Rio Grande*, etc... I think it is normal for any immigrant community there are terms such as (FOB) Fresh Off the Boat. One time I heard John Stewart say that his Grandfather hated immigrants although he came from Russia(?), as he got off the boat he turned around at the others waiting and asked them to "get off his country".
*even though the majority do not come in that way
It was an interesting discussion, or at least had the potential to be. But the inclusion of Pat Buchanan?!?!?! That threw the entire conversation off because every time the guy opened his mouth I wanted to scream "Shut The Fuck Up!!!". It made the discussion far more polarized and confrontational than it needed to be.
I did enjoy the perspective offered, I think by Putnam, regarding the marriage only a few decades ago that was considered "mixed" because it was between an Irish Catholic and an Italian Catholic. Our culture's relationship to these labels is constantly changing.
Also, I agree with those above who mention economics as the issue far more so than race. A middle class working neighborhood of owner-occupied homes all share enough of the same concerns that the cultural differences can be easily navigated. A meth lab next door to a wealthy lawyer is likely to cause mistrust (or, on the other hand, an enterprise opportunity).
first of all, these guys are writing from boston. secondly, i see pat buchanan's name up there.
What's wrong with Boston? Thankfully Buchanan was there only for a little while.
here's an interesting diversity problem: do we hold ourselves up as role models and try to tolerate Pat Buchannan's "diversity" (try to get whatever good out of him, or pesuade him of our ideas, ignore him - but include him as one of 'us') or attack him as an "other"? doesn't it undermine our own stance to attack him?
Boston's one of the most open cities I know about, racially. Culturally, however, it's completely rigid in many ways. Anyone can emulate the 'boston brahmin' mould, of any color, race- but creed seems non-negotiable. imho.
Boston? OPEN? You must be really young. That city is one of the most racially intolerant cities in the Northeast. Need anyone be reminded of the busing problems of the late 70's or the pregnant woman murdered by a couple of "black guys" and the police turning the black community upside down, only to find out that it was the husband that did it. the husband pointed the finger at two - i think two - black men because he knew the perception in the city. the red sox the last team to have an african american player on their team, the celtic players that felt isolated by the community...i am sure there is more. There is tremendous distrust by the african american community of the police in Boston.
Here's one for you. Female castration, cab drivers refusing to drive patrons carrying alcohol because of their religious beliefs, arranged marriages, you'd probably think some third world country, but no, it's happening right here in the Twin Cities. The Somali men are angry that women protest and bring charges for the hideous castration and abuse, it's part of their religion, part of their culture they say. Bullshit. People come to this country for many reasons, but freedom to practice your inane and barbaric persecution of women is not one of them. Either be assimilated or invest in your return to your country of origin where your freedom to practice your barbaric nature is protected by your own "regime." I want none of that here. Don't get me wrong, I am not a "love or leave it" guy but this shit is insane.
wow, the mods deleted my picture, i guess i'll have to link controversial stuff from now on
[beta], your reaction is funny because you recently suggested that I burp on mommie's shoulder (u r right it's "grad school" not"gradschool")
You are right again - I wasn't even alive in the 70s - because it was almost 30 years ago ! People don't understand, Boson is very open - or at lest the academic/cultural/financial axis is, I think the blue collar neighborhoods (& police force) might be a little different - it's a wierd place, you have to talk the talk....
that somali shit is scary... i don't even want to know, Apurimac........
you will be assimilated.
resistance is futile.
what an awful word. such bigotry imbedded in its use (female mutilation aside, cuz that is actually quite nasty)...
Putnam has always been a "NIMBY". but i think tension has more to do with class than with race, and a bit of tension is better than all quiet and dull...
I think there is a fine line between blind assimilation and blind tolerance...isn't the magic of immigration the chance for 2 cultures to reflect their good and bad sides & together become a mix of the best of both?
Obscure magazine "Ode" had an interesting take on tolerance- that it implies just not persecuting others, not explicity accepting or even learning about eachother. They suggest we 'welcome' eachother rather than 'tolerate' eachother's existence.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.