21 February 2012

Imagine That!

Here’s an explanation of why Americans are less inclined to riot in this day and age:

"So why," Katz asks, "had collective violence more or less disappeared from the streets of American cities?"
He tackles this question in a new book, Why Don't American Cities Burn?, which he discussed Friday in Washington at a forum hosted by the New America Foundation. What's so striking about his answer is that many of the trends implicated in our quiet streets are not necessarily good ones. It's true, American cities aren't burning. But we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back just yet.
Some of Katz' explanations are good news: Previously marginalized groups that once felt they had no other outlet now have more voices in the political process. White flight ceded whole cities – and their governments – to African Americans in the U.S. And this left neighborhood boundaries less contentious, Katz argues, eliminating one of the causes of urban friction. In the 1960s, by contrast, large numbers of African Americans were moving into the city at a time when whites had not yet left.

So, racial homogeneity corresponds with reductions in riots?  Who could ever have guessed it?  Anyway, it looks like diversity is not all that it’s cracked up to be.  Maybe, then, we shouldn’t try to force the issue.  Maybe, then, we should simply let people decide who they want to live with and who they want to live near to.  And maybe we should leave those people alone.

3 comments:

  1. Well, I left a comment but it was eaten. Here's the summary:

    we don't sacrifice our bodies to bacterial, viral, or parasitic diseases for the sake of diversity. Why do we sacrifice our societies? I think people confuse bio/ecological diversity (a certain amount of which is healthy, expected, and acceptable) with social and cultural diversity. I can accept a certain amount of diversity if it doesn't tread upon or expect change from my own background. But once a change in ways or ideas is forced (as is the way of diversity), resistance or migration or death result.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Anyway, it looks like diversity is not all that it’s cracked up to be. "

    I guess it depends on what you objective is. Safety and harmony? Nope. Anti-white / anti-male social engineering? Well now we're getting somewhere.

    Jeez, I'm starting to sound like a WN. But it's hard to avoid these obvious conclusions when "diverse" is defined as "not a white guy".

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Cranberry- Diversity isn't always unhealthy (cf. Sowell's work on conquests and cultures), but as an end to itself it is generally bad.

    @EW- One thing that really bothers me is how diversity is defined by physical metrics, like sex or skin color. It's as if no one believes that diversity of thought can occur without diversity of skin color. But, more to the point, it does seem as if the current push towards diversity is nothing more than anti-white rhetoric. I don't know if I agree WNs, because I think culture can transcend race with appropriate incentives.

    ReplyDelete