The Myth of American Diversity

[Winchester]

[IndependentProfessor]

Ex, I googled the same damn thing yesterday. Can't remember why . . . but I did.

First off, I have to define "diverse". In the way we're talking about it, it's much more than an academic definition. For what we mean, it signifies many different cultures coming together, living amongst each other, learning from each other, having relationships, etc. For me, it means that the sum is greater than just adding all the individual parts together.

I thought that this map was WAY off, though. Why? Well, look at what they say about a country like Uganda. "They are diverse because they have over 100 different tribes." OK, but that doesn't make them "diverse". It makes them "divided". Do those tribes intermingle, intermarry, and live amongst each other? If not, then they aren't really diverse - in the meaning that we are talking about it. It's just coincidence that someone drew a line around a lot of tiny, isolated villages. Or, if they do intermingle, intermarry, etc., then they still aren't diverse, because they are all 1 race - African American. From Africa. Living in Uganda.

For further explanation, look at that comparison the CIA made for German and USA that Fstar posted. German? Italian? Polish? They're all f**k WHITE! Uganda had all those other tribal names, when it should have said "99.999999% African (with 3 white dudes who got lost on vacation)".

But, let's look at "American" for a sec. If we applied the Ugandan structure, then we'd be 2.6% New Yorkian, 1.1% Los Angelian, 0.9% Chicagan, 0.8% Houstonian, etc. And, that's just stupid.

Lastly, I don't think America is the "most diverse". But, I think we're up there. Canada surely might have us beat, though I'd find it hard to believe that there are as many "other-than-white" in Canada as in America. But, I've never lived there, only visited. Sure looked pretty white to me, though. Mexico? Perhaps, but they all speak Spanish, eat similar foods, are probably Catholic, etc. regardless of their country of origin.

I guess my main takeaway from all this is that . . . whatever criteria is used, I'm going to have a problem with it. In order to do this kind of exercise, you have to draw lines. But, where? At what point is someone black or white? How can you be both Latino and black (I know how - but statistically, it screws up the system). What if my mother was black but from England, my father Asian from Indonesia, both had immigrated to South America, and I was born in India? Can I just color the whole sheet in?

[exploited]

I think the real issue is that diversity is defined in a way that we are not accustomed too. In these studies, when they talk about diversity, this is what they mean: if we call two random people in Canada, what is the percentage chance that they will belong to different ethnic groups?

Whereas when we think about diversity, it is perhaps an absolute number of different ethnic groups in a given area.

So, for instance, perhaps a town of 5000 has 30 ethnic groups, but only 1000 people who are non-white, non-European. Would you consider that more diverse than a town of 5000 with 15 ethnic groups but 2000 people who are non-white, non-European?

In terms of how you define ethnicities and how that impacts outcomes, the Wikipedia page gives a good breakdown. One of the techniques avoids making value judgements when people describe themselves as belonging to a specific ethnic group. They just accept that they do. Another technique actually requires researchers to make those judgements according to ethnic classifications found in the British encyclopedia. The third, if I remember correctly, is a balanced approach.

In all three cases, though, the US is less diverse than Mexico and Canada. At least using that measure. In global terms, it is thoroughly middle of the road.

[IndependentProfessor]

Anyone else find it highly ironic (and hilarious, if it wasn't so sad) that we allow people to classify themselves according to race (Census forms, tax forms, DBE memberships, etc.) without doing much, if any, background check. Yet, people are not allowed to choose their own sexual preference (according to some)?

Census taker: Mr. Brown, do you identify most with white, African, Asian, Pacific-Islander, Hispanic, or Native American?
Mr. Brown (who has 3 white grandparents and 1 black grandparent): I identify mostly with African.

Redneck: Are you some kind of queer?
So-Called-Queer: Well, I was born a male, but have always identified more with girls, recently had operations and hormone therapy to physically become a woman, and even had my gender officially changed with the state.
Redneck: Then you're a man, Nancy-Boy!

[Saz]

All of this is so stupid and imprecise. It's 2016, we figured out the human genome years ago. The only diversity that matters is GENETIC diversity, and that is something we can measure. For reasons historical and geographic, europeans are really not that genetically diverse. The difference between a pole and a german is an arbitrary political line that has shifted dozens of times. But there is a genetic difference between say someone from China and someone from say Africa. Of course, there is genetic variation among us all as individuals. This is to say we are all diverse in our own unique way, but in the aggregate there are certain consistent and distinct genetic markers between someone from Bolivia and someone from Russia.

I think viewing it this was is more precise and a bit more just. First of all, it reinforces the fact that we are all human beings. Genetically distinct and yet all fundamentally in the same group. It's also more precise. Black, Asian, White...it obscures the complex and unique individuals we all are. Sorting by DNA would make that apparent and would relate race to what it is, a socially constructed view based on appearance. Ethnicity could be precisely determined using DNA, and I have no doubt it would vary so much from actual appearance it would make apparent how silly race is. Your liberal friends will will share genetic markers with the mongols and your conservative friends will really be 17% black.

It's also just more objective. You would have your own unique DNA markers, but how to classify such markers could be determined place by placed based on local customs. In Uganda your DNA may specify that you are Banyankole, but in the US that Genetic marker would be categorized more broadly, as Ugandan, African, Black...whatever the shitlibs feel is appropriate.

I actually don't think America is that diverse. It's really a lot of of germanics (brits are saxons and normans and normans were french aka gaul aka barbarians and therefore germanics), Irish and Italians, and the descendants of slaves and native americans. Brazil is just as diverse I would think, along with the other countries we forced to act decent and accept immigrants, like Canada and Australia. America i is just the biggest "multicultural" country, so whatever the canadians have we have 5x more. India and China really arent countries known for mass immigration in the last 100 years, which really is what separates the multicultural countries from the rest in my book.

[John Galt]

[Saz]

[IndependentProfessor]

[John Galt]

[exploited]