Wow, I meant it was the most diverse by race in the world. They track a specific form of ethnicity that makes africa the most diverse place on earth. So I was definitely wrong. A small part of the story I tell myself has been rebuked upon further review. So I withdraw my statement.
Fearon[3] instead is trying to construct the ”right list” of ethnic groups which ”depends on what people in the country identify as the most socially relevant ethnic groupings”.
This measure of ethnic diversity is based on how people in each individual country define ethnic diversity. USians probably just say White, Black, Asian (probably a little more complex than that) whereas countries with more clannish understandings of ethnicity are going to say "people in the next village over are different."
This measure of ethnic diversity is based on how people in each individual country define ethnic diversity. USians probably just say White, Black, Asian (probably a little more complex than that) whereas countries with more clannish understandings of ethnicity are going to say "people in the next village over are different."
The issue of 'ethnic diversity' is actually incredibly complex. The US is much more diverse in terms of, like, skin color than many other countries around the world. But I wouldn't say that we're actually particularly culturally or ethnically diverse. Almost everyone speaks English, almost everyone participates in the mainline WASPish culture. Someplace like Papua New Guinea is at the top of that Wikipedia list because there are, like, dozens of different languages spoken (including some cases where the people in the next village actually do speak a different and mutually unintelligible language).
So, the question is how do we define diversity? Someplace like, say, Nigeria is fairly ethnically diverse but there aren't as many different skin colors. Additionally in many developing countries you have a cultural diversity wherein urban middle-class people live more or less the way Western people do, but people who have been less affected by industrialization/development still live in traditional ways. Should that kind of diversity be considered more important than simple racial/skin color diversity? I think there is a good argument that it should.
I would argue that the US's self-perception as a very diverse place is at least partially due to our general obsession with skin color.
I realize the irony here, but yes that is what I mean. Who else has the demographic reality of the USA and gets along reasonably well? Most places demographics are fairly homogeneous and you can't be not racist in my opinion if you are all one race.
Ok so if you never drink milk how would you know if you were intolerant. If someone who does asks you about it can you definitely say you are not intolerant?
Ok so if you never drink milk how would you know if you were intolerant. If someone who does asks you about it can you definitely say you are not intolerant?
I think you've got this the wrong way round. The question is can the other person say I definitely am lactose intolerant, merely because I don't drink milk.
Besides, the statement that every other country on Earth is basically ethnically and racially homogenous is pretty suspect anyway.
I think you've got this the wrong way round. The question is can the other person say I definitely am lactose intolerant, merely because I don't drink milk.
Besides, the statement that every other country on Earth is basically ethnically and racially homogenous is pretty suspect anyway.
Yea well I already stated I was wrong about this impression. At least in a major enough way that I withdraw the statement. That said, you can be a racist from elsewhere and you can think you aren’t a racist from an “elsewhere”. The latter is just tougher to really prove since your exposure to other ethnic groups and cultures is limited.
I think that is probably part of it too, but I just don't feel like when most people say the US is a diverse place they mean we come from Italy, Spain, Poland, Germany, France, England, etc.
I have no idea what you mean by elsewhere (non-USA?) or why only one of them is in quotes.
Again the question isn't whether you are able to prove you aren't racist (and what a lovely concept that is anyway), it's whether or not if's fair, or even makes sense, to say you necessarily are one.
I have no idea what you mean by elsewhere (non-USA?) or why only one of them is in quotes.
Again the question isn't whether you are able to prove you aren't racist (and what a lovely concept that is anyway), it's whether or not if's fair, or even makes sense, to say you necessarily are one.
Fair has little to do with much and it doesn’t this. Sense? Sure. We have a few real racist posters here who have almost no exposure to any other culture than their own in any prolonged setting anyways. So yes it makes sense. If you hve no exposure to any other cultures but don’t act racist the supposition should naturally be you aren’t.
This seems a rather glib method of justifying being deliberately unfair.
Sense? Sure. We have a few real racist posters here who have almost no exposure to any other culture than their own in any prolonged setting anyways. So yes it makes sense.
Oh we're going down this route already are we... no thanks. But given the above I'll just say that maybe we're not even agreeing on what the topic even is, so never mind I guess.
it's a great thing because within 20 years or so white people will be minorities and it will be impossible for them to elect anyone to represent a white christian belief system which is an ethnocentric and supremacist belief system. within 150 years everyone will have completely forgotten who they were all together and the world will be a better and more inclusive place because of it.
There is also this thing where national origin and ethnicity and ancestry get conflated and confused in the US. Only something like 12% of people in the US were born in other countries, and the number with parents born abroad wouldn't be super high either, but there's heaps more who claim a "national origin" from several generations ago and who are actually talking about ancestries (German, Irish, Scandinavian etc), which don't really impact on identity in any way beyond being a bit of interesting trivia.
it's a great thing because within 20 years or so white people will be minorities and it will be impossible for them to elect anyone to represent a white christian belief system which is an ethnocentric and supremacist belief system. within 150 years everyone will have completely forgotten who they were all together and the world will be a better and more inclusive place because of it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
