Republican Pollster : Half Of Republicans Believe Racial Diversity Has A Negative Impact On America
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Does increased racial diversity have a positive or negative impact on America?
ALL AMERICANS • 64% positive • 31% negative
DEMOCRATS • 85% positive • 13% negative
REPUBLICANS • 43% positive • 50% negative
https://www. prri.org/research/ameri can-democracy-in-crisis-voters-midterms-trump-election-2018/ …
Tags
Who is online
120 visitors
Well, well, the truth spills out.
I think even the Fox News pollster Luntz was a little taken back by this one.
Life would be very boring and we would tend to stagnate if we weren't a racially diverse society.
Not necessarily. Several countries have done very well with racial homogeneity. Japan. South Korea. Singapore. United Kingdom. Ireland. France. Germany. Australia. Norway. Finland. Sweden. Netherlands. Denmark. Switzerland.
All of these countries are among the least racially diverse countries in the world.
All have relatively robust economies. Most have relatively low crime rates within their country. Although, as some of them have only recently begun to increase immigration (from beyond Europe, particularly), they have seen increased conflict within their borders, including changes to crime patterns.
Japan and South Korea are very racist, even among other Asian nations. Singapore is not homogeneous. The UK is far from being homogeneous. France and Germany are equally diverse societies as are the rest of your countries. France has many African immigrants from their many former colonies. Turks are very common immigrants in Germany.
Why do you have a distinct problem with racially diverse societies? Is America only for white Christians in your eyes?
Australia is pretty diverse, too
It was your claim that without diversity, a country is boring (that's your opinion, but hardly an objective truth) and stagnates. I'm not sure what you mean by stagnation, but the countries I listed are doing very well by many objective measures.
And yet no outrage over this from the Left. Hmmm . . .
Racially, it's pretty homogeneous. That's the subject of this seed. Not as much as Japan, for sure, but more so than America. It's 73% Chinese, 13.3% Indian, and 9.1% Indian. But if you like, we can exclude it. Let's look at the others:
Is it? It's 87.1% white and that's a pretty recent development. That number was much higher not long ago. That sounds pretty homogeneous to me.
Are they? You might be surprised. France is about 85% white. Germany is 91% white. Want me to keep going?
I don't think racial diversity is the problem. I think ethnic diversity is, and we're really talking about ethnic diversity here, not racial. Of course, there are those for whom it is racial, but for most people, it's about what is acceptable behavior.
If you have five different ethnic groups trying to share the same space, there's going to be problems. If a group moves into an American neighborhood that traditionally eats dogs, there's going to be a problem. If a group moves in that requires their women to walk behind the men, there's going to be a problem. And so on. It's also why you get areas that have a higher concentration of a particular ethnic group rather than being evenly distributed throughout a given population. They want what is familiar. The norms they came from rather than the norms of their adoptive country.
This is why diversity without limitations is a bad thing. We can't accept diversity for the sake of diversity. That's just stupid and it won't work. It actually increases tensions rather than relieves them. And it isn't just "white Christians" who are to blame. It is everyone. They all insist that things should be what they think it should be and disparage those who don't agree. Everyone expects everyone else to see that their ethnicity is the right one. If they didn't they'd adopt the others. Since they don't...
What Truth? You making assumptions?
In my opinion Republicans feel it is a negative impact because a lot of Democrats believe in the welfare state and use minorities to push there socialist agenda.
I looked at the source of your poll and it definingly leans one way.
I find it revealing that you conflate race with welfare.
Oh and BTFW, the BS about 'Democrats use minorities' is pretty freaking racist. Perhaps you could consider the posit that minorities are just as capable of thinking for themselves as you are...
A lot of people do. Every time conservatives want to roll back welfare benefits or attach conditions to those benefits, you can count on liberals to accuse them of being racist against people of color. They say this in spite of the fact that more white people are on welfare than any other group.
Well that makes it all good then.../s
True but don't help them sell one of their favorite narratives. That's only true because whites are by far the largest majority in the US. The really cogent statistic in this regard is percentage of each demographic that receives welfare like SNAP. In this case "white" represents the SMALLEST percentage when compared to all others.
SNAP usage as a percentage of population
Just another inconvenient fact for many on the left who will attempt to obfuscate the truth whenever possible.
Here's the real inconvenient truth that conservatives hate to be reminded of:
"when the lens shifts to political ideology, the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57% ), liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program ."
Meh, not surprised at all. The link i attached shows the same data.
That said, the comment in question was related to race not political leanings or tendencies.
Requiring a I.D. to vote is racist because minorities don't have the means to get a I.D.
Minorities are incapable of competing with whites so we need affirmative action.
etc.
I think we all know who the racist are. Nice try though.
I do think they are just as capable as I am. That is why I am against affirmative action because it presumes that minorities are not able to complete and be as good as anyone else.
That is why I'm against quotas because I believe that someone should be chosen for their abilities not because their skin color fills in a slot on a spread sheet.
That is why I have no issue with voter ID laws. Minorities are just as able to get proper identification as anyone else.
It is liberals that do not think that minorities are capable of doing things for themselves
Right, but my point still stands. If you cut welfare benefits you hurt way more white people than any other group. Therefore, it's silly to accuse them of racism for wanting to cut benefits.
Do people of other races and religions bother you? Are they less of an American in your eyes because of their ancestry or religious beliefs? Are they lazy troublemakers because they aren't white?
You're the one who brought in political leanings... The statistics were related to race, your comment, not so much.
"Just another inconvenient fact for many on the left"
It's ageist too.
Affirmative action doesn't have anything to do with competition.
No KD, why don't you point them out for me.
You obviously have no clue why affirmative action was put in place.
Interesting that you think that quotas are only about the color of ones skin. They aren't.
Actually, that isn't true.
That's interesting too since most minorities are themselves liberals. So is your posit that we're self loathing?
Actually it is true. The only ones that think that they are not are liberals
I know exactly why it was put in place. It was BS then and it even a bigger pile today.
No shit Dick Tracy! Quotas are crap regardless of reason.
They who?
Hey, I'm not the one who limited it to skin color, you were.
I didn't limit anything. I just used one area.
Nope. I don't know why any of that would be true. I'll put the same questions to you.
John , I am tending to think Like one of the commenters on the seeded article , it will be situational , as well as is the diversification un coerced or coerced, meaning is it being done freely with everyones agreement or is it being forced on any one side?
the only experience I have had with truly force diversification was back during the boston bussing fiasco as I call it , I lasted about half a semester before my family pooled funds , and got me into a private parochial school locally and THAT only lasted for a sememster, due to me being an obstinant little prick with the sisters. After that , parents being divorced , my mother moved us kids out of state.
i'm not sure i understand - please explain what you mean by "situational" ? i'm not sure i understand how racial diversity could be "situational" in America
Maybe it means that if you are in a situation where you are surrounded by your own kind everything will be cool.
lets see if I can really explain this the way I think , no guarantees.
What I mean by situational is ,
One enlists or is commissioned into the military, they do so understanding that it is desegregated , and has people also enlisting from diverse backgrounds, having different backgrounds, it is to be accepted at the very beginning, no if ands or buts about it.
that is a situation and example of uncoerced diversification. people do it of their own free will.
The example I gave above with my only example of coerced diversification , the Boston bussing of the 70s , failed , and failed miserably , and there are a number of reasons it did, neither side desired for what the courts ordered to be done in that particular situation , and it was definitely detrimental to the people involved , mostly to the kids whom actually had opertunities forcibly removed , by court order.
So I think in my opinion and from experience it is something that will depend on the situation , and if it is forced or not , don't get me wrong , it will eventually happen , but most likely not as fast as some would like.
Hopefully I made what I said a little clearer and easier to understand.
that situation already exists in America. Do we still have places that are legally segregated in this country ? (honest question)
that was a different time - i thought we were discussing today's world ?
Do you think it was a bad idea to desegregate ?
i'm sorry, i'm still confused. In America - we are already desegregated (from my understanding, maybe there are places that are still legally segregated that i'm not aware of) so i'm not sure where the idea of "forced" or "coerced" diversification comes from or how it can be situational in America.
I think the history of the United States always indicated that one day it would become majority non white.
The Europeans came here, to a land that was already occupied , to varying extents depending on where you were at. So there was always an indigenous non white population. Then the whites imported a whole other set of non whites from Africa to become slaves. Prior to the US civil rights era, immigration to the US was largely from other "white" countries such as Germany, Ireland, Italy, and so on.
Then, after the civil rights era life in the US seemed more inviting to modern day Africans, people from the Carribean, Southeast Asians, Indians from India, etc.
Then white birth rates fell and whites were not reproducing as fast as the others.
As long as we have a constitution such as we do, and our legal system, and our national traditions, I think the vast majority of these non whites will assimilate and become "Americans". People come here to have a better life, not to be troublemakers.
Yeah there may not be as many white faces downtown Omaha or Denver as there used to be, but that is ok.
But I guess a lot of Republicans don't think so.
Correct, we original Americans were and are non white.
Actually the poll doesn't surprise me at all.
There have been a good many Poll that list ethnic/nationality background, such as Hispanic, White, African, Native Alaskan, etc, but, the one that is always missing is Native American or American Indian. While there is a 'Other' choice available, it does not allow Native Americans to be counted. This to me is not a fair Poll, especially, here in America, where the Native American voice should also be accurately accounted for.
The only correct answer is I don't know.
It could be better, It could be the same, it could be worse.
Anyone who pretends to know what America will be like in 2043 is either selling you something, or delusional.
So all the "discomfort" we see on the part of some whites today might somehow miraculously lessen before 2043.
Hokay.
So John votes with the Republican majority.
"Half of the republicans believe 'diversity' has a negative effect on society?" Alright, I'll bite. Then could 'half of the republicans' explain Dinesh D'Souza or Ben Carson?
I will agree with those 'half of the republicans' on a point however. They do have a negative effect on society.
Two concepts:
- law of large numbers ,
- Uncle Tom syndrome .
OIC
Class!
Most characteristics of a society are fraught with tradeoffs. In America, we have freedom of speech, which promotes democracy, but also allows offensive speech. We have the right to be armed, and that keeps the people sovereign, but it also facilitates violent crime. Various kinds of diversity can open our eyes and minds to fresh ideas, enhancing life in many ways, but it also introduce differences that cause conflict.
So, I would say that racial diversity has some benefits, but also some drawbacks. Unfortunately, in today's political climate, you can count on somebody accusing you of racism for pointing out these fundamental truths.
What are those drawbacks?
Different cultures prioritize different things.
Some will prioritize family, so it's not uncommon to see three, four, or more generations living in the same house; while others ship the kids off to school or kick them out of the house as soon as they can and you're a failure if you move in with your adult kids.
Some will prioritize education more than others, so you will people of those cultures succeed in the sciences more than others. Others might prioritize athletics or soldiering or entrepreneurship. Some like their music loud, other soft. Some like their styles colorful or elaborate or austere. Some cultures put a high value on social order and conformity while others find such values to be oppressive to personal liberty.
All of these things lead to conflict when people meet in the world. Educational and financial outcomes will vary widely. Some will necessarily be more prone to poverty or crime than others. In our prison systems, it has developed into a large, complex, and dangerous systems of gangs who export their violence to the streets, impacting everyone.
So, like many aspects of the American experiment, there are tradeoffs.
That's a very good summary, Tacos
Gosh!
This is amazing news! Who would ever have imagined it?
It absolutely overturns everything we knew!
Republicans are racists! Wow! Stunning!
... or not news at all...
I don’t know if it will be good. From a historical context I’m not sure it has been good for the American Indians.
I have learned that I enjoy living amongst people that share similar morals, values and interests as myself. I enjoy visiting different cultures but prefer to live with people similar to myself.
If I could find a place similar to Galt’s Gulch from Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged I’d pack up and move there ASAP.
Ayn Rand wrote fiction.
She also has an extensive collection of nonfiction work.
Trying to pass polls off as fact again...
Hey this is a funny one. Did you hear the one about the poll on the 2016 election?
Democrats are racists. They support racial discrimination by the government. That causes problems.
Some are, as are many Republicans. But as a party, Democrats embrace diversity far more than their Republican counterparts. 38% of the Democrat congress are minorities which matches US minority demographics, while only 5.5% of Republican legislators are. I don't think it's any wonder that minorities vote for Democrats, they see themselves and their needs being represented by them while Republicans think everything is always better with a white male in charge.
What does that mean? It's not as if Republicans are telling diverse people not to join their party. The only reason Democrats have convinced people that they "embrace" diversity is because for almost 50 years they have been in the business of giving things away to people because of their skin color. They'll hire you or admit you to college, not because you're the most qualified, but because you're dark.
At best - I want to stress at best - Democrats think that any situation involving a group of people should reflect nationwide racial demographics. If black people are 13% of the population, then 13% of Academy Award nominations should go to black people, 13% of Fortune 500 CEOs should be black, 13% of Congress should be black. That's at best. In reality, in whatever setting they decide is important, they want people of color overrepresented. Where they are already overrepresented, that area no longer counts even if it once was very important (professional sports, for example).
That's not diversity, it's simple racism.
The real value in diversity is not in skin color, but rather in the different experiences and perspectives that diverse people bring to bear. Diversity of thought, belief, and culture can enrich our collective experience and expand our possibilities for success and improvement. But those factors are not automatically defined based on skin color, particularly in America. In America, people of any color can be born into wealth or poverty, education or crime, health or disease.
To be sure, a look at skin color can be an aspect of the search for diversity, but if that is as far as you look, then you're engaging in racism.
They are telling immigrants, minorities and people of color not to join their party by their actions and their party platform that does not in any way represent the needs and struggles that diverse people have in America. And those of the LGTBQ community certainly don't feel welcome as they are constantly attacked by Republican policies trying to shove them back in the closet. And it's not about giving "free stuff' as you and so many ill-informed people claim. In fact, a slightly higher percentage of conservatives (57%& take the "free stuff" than liberals (53%) and independents (53%).
So the myth that Democrats are just giving and taking more hand outs is just that, a myth. And the myth of city citizens taking more "free stuff" than the supposedly hearty country folk is also a myth.
" Rural residents also have disproportionately benefited from these entitlements (62% ), compared with urban (54%) or suburban (53%) dwellers."
So really, it's the rural conservatives who are the largest drain on our society and have been taking all the "free stuff" that they blame on the "diverse" community which is why minorities and immigrants don't tend to gravitate towards the Republican party.
How? What actions are you talking about?
For example?
They are? How?
You're mixing apples and oranges. The examples I gave were specifically aimed at people because of race. The examples in your link are welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment and food stamps. Those are available to everyone. Affirmative action is not. I'll wager that the greatest percentage of those benefits (by dollar amount) is Medicare*, which is old people, who are traditionally conservative anyway.
* According to this website , of the money spent on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Obamacare subsidies, 3/5 or 60% goes to Medicare.
Everything that follows from that is unrelated to what I actually said. Therefore, your attempt to debunk it is a strawman fallacy.
Racial diversity is not a bad thing. Extreme variations in cultural diversity... and injected at a high rate... is an extreme issue. Immigration regardless of race needs to be controlled to allow assimilation, to prevent cultural enclaves clinging to their homelands ways, and to fill any economic needs we may have.
in reality there is a hidden agenda behind the mass influx of refugees and migrants being pushed. It is part of a globalist agenda to have open borders and have the entire world answer to one panel of people.
sound far fetched? Look at the EU. Whose original purpose was supposed to be an economic union but turned into a political seat of power trying to control all countries involved to do their bidding by threatening them.
And most progressives lap it up. They disregard acid attacks, increased terrorism, grooming gangs, knife attacks, no go zones....
its all acceptable casualties to their agenda... because "haha it hurts white people! They deserve it"
its too late at this point. The snowball can't be stopped. Not peacefully anyways. They will deny they were ever for it at the end...
the goal is to weaken the US and European first world countries, to make nationalism synonymous with racism and nazism. To make being proud of your cultural heritage a bad thing.
Why aren't their calls for countries besides European and the Us To take in more refugees? How many has Israel taken in? Saudi, Qatar? Other African countries?
Flood the country with people who will hold no allegiance to it. Have them vote the direction you want to go, demonized any who oppose it, and when the time is right destroy the countries identity and move towards global control and open borders.
that is why European countries have made it illegal to criticize the immigrants, while empowering their hateful rhetoric, hiding newstories of their crimes, etc.
its going to lead to world wide civil war or the annihilation of Europe and the US as it was known.
Why would the white elites want to hurt white people?
Because sitting in judgment - even of themselves - is good for their self esteem and allows them to escape the shame of being the oppressor. They pat themselves on the back for being so enlightened and hold themselves out this way for the applause of the crowd.
Because they believe they will never personally be affected by any other their decisions. Look at the double standard they already enjoy. Flooding areas with migrants while they live on massive estates free from consequences of their decisions. If any place ever got bad enough they could uproot and move to another country and they know it. We are livestock to them and not on their level.
Which is why so many always make claims they will take refugees in etc etc and never do. They want people to believe their virtue signaling without actually following through on it.
They believe a one world govt will bring peace. That when the world is under one umbrella with no borders there will never be war.
Its naive and dangerous train of thought. It ignores cultural differences and historical examples.
I have to wonder who the hell you are talking about here. I think you are taking what Trumpublicans are saying (lies as usual) and just painting the left with their bs. You state such extreme things about 'them', and its not what 'they' actually believe, it comes from the right/Russian propaganda machine. So just stop LYING like Trump does about 'others'. Nobody believes in open borders. I don't even know what ass that drivel about equating people with livestock came out of, that sounds much like the usual projection Trump and his holes like to spout. Your fear over diversity is sad really, and highlights how easy it is to influence people by magnifying their fears, Trump has that down like nobody in recent history. The weird part is how people are willing to suspend reality and say they believe him even when the lie is out in the open for the world to see.
The co chair of the DNC wore a shirt that said he doesn't believe in borders, you have sanctuary cities that protect illegals, Mexico handed out pamphlets to its citizens on how to sneak into the US and stay hidden. You don't want to deport the dreamers you don't want to deport their parents, democrat politicians warn areas of ice raids... don't pretend open borders isn't an agenda of the left. You can't say you don't believe in open borders then do everything you can to prevent people from being deported and protecting people coming into the country illegally. Actions speak louder than words. Stop protecting illegals and then maybe we can take that claim seriously. Side note. You wasn't you particularly... just generally anyone who says the left doesn't support open borders
That is wrong. And stupid. Any opinions built on this foundation are necessarily wrong. And stupid.
How is it wrong? The EU was initially a economic union. Yes it had other goals that were supposed to strengthen those countries but it was never supposed to be a political seat controlling member nations.
Bow they threaten members who don't govern their country as they demand. Why is the European Union demanding members take in refugees for example? Why is one country demanding others how they run their country?
The entire premise is bogus. There is no benefit to diversity which one can state objectively. Anyone who agrees with this is automatically falsely labeled as being prejudiced against other cultures and ethnicities.
other than access to more diverse types of foods, what is the benefit to a nation
i have traveled and lived in other nations including Africa and Asia and enjoyed those times. But that is much different from changing cultures and societies in the name of diversity for diversity’s sake
Is America a white country?
That’s not my point and you’re validating my question.
what is the benefit to the nation for diversity?
what is the benefit to any individual in the US?
Perhaps you can tell us what the bible states about diversity...Want to give it a try livefree.
Here is what scientificamerican says about it..Seems that it even makes RWer's a bit smarter.
Since your ex military livefree you'll understand this about diversity. The US military is roughly 68% white and 32% minority. If you take away that 32% you'd have to draft a hell of a lot of white guy/women to make up the difference.
Seems diversity is a good thing. Of course you can live in your non diversity world and ignore reality.
That has nothing to do with my question. We’re not talking about salvation which is for All Nations and races.
what is the benefit to a nation that leftists claim exists.
I believe in the draft that all men should serve in the military.
And the military composition is not evidence of the benefit of diversity
Red herring, the sin of inbreeding has nothing to do with my question
That link may be one of rather most inane and unscientific arguments on diversity.
the gender argument bordered on idiotic since society would cease to exist with both men and women
the rest of the arguments are biased conjecture
i can counter them by showing examples of Japan, China, and Scandinavian countries just to list a few.
and I never see the left arguing for diversity in Asian or African Nations
Try reading the link in the comment. It's quite informative and perhaps you'll learn from it.
Of course it is to you...LOL...
Do any of us live in Africa, China, Japan etc...We are talking about the US. DUH
LMAO, you too funny livefree....
I did read it which is why I ridiculed it
You’re arguing against your own argument, keep it up
Was it above your pay grade?
Actually I'm not but if you think I am and it makes you happy go for it.
If God is the creator of all then God created diversity. Would it not be good then to embrace the diversity created by God? Or are you of the belief that God created diversity to enable segregation and bigotry?
Peaceful coexistence would, it seems, be a good goal. The only way to get there is to first embrace diversity.
E.A Since when has " God " been the seeded topic?
and why the derail?
Non sequitur?
Either that or I am totally misreading your comment. When you write this:
Are you trying to disagree with my explanation for the value of diversity? How does this apply to what I wrote?
Damn straight we don't want any crazy godders influencing our laws, Tex!
In this case, John is the seeder and determines what is on topic. Please have a chat with Perrie on how this works.
Okay. How does that relate to the point I made? I offered a reason for why diversity would be good - answering livefreeordie's question. My answer does not presume God influences policy or policy makers.
So what is your opinion? Is diversity a good thing or a bad thing? Do you think that a creator would engineer a diverse world with the intent of segregation and bigotry or the intent of peaceful coexistence?
Never suggested that God was pulling any strings on this. Read my comment, that was not the point (at all).
That is a different discussion.
What is the benefit of not having diversity? Your questions are insignificant and pointless.
No race riots.
No but I believe it.
That's true Dean, two of the biggest race riots in the US were caused by those white folks...NY Draft riots and the Tulsa race riot...They should start behaving themselves don't ya think.
Yeah and the Indians might not have had a trail of tears if there was no racial diversity. There have been many problems attributed to it.
Yup, if the white folks would have stayed in Europe we wouldn't have had that problem. Of course genocide is quite different then diversity.
What about the 32% of the military that are minorities. Get rid of that diversity and more white folks would have to serve to make up the short fall...A draft would be a good thing, no excuses everyone has to serve...LOL
End the wars and mothball much of the military. Our founding fathers didn’t want a large military during peacetime anyway. No need for a draft. With advancements in technology we can dramatically cutback on manpower.
In other words you can’t answer the question
When you have diversity you have the benefit of many experiences, viewpoints, traditions and outlooks that all influence the whole. Without diversity everyone would be singing only Scotch-Irish folk songs all the time.
Your comment is pointless and insignificant.
Yours is idiotic and again fails to answer the question
You didnt answer my question. Is America a white country ?
Irrelevant to the question
however for the majority of our history the us has been a nation predominantly Anglo-European
None of you diversity folks seem to think it’s bad that most of the world doesn’t see a need or value in diversity
china is more than 91.5% Han Chinese, 7.4% other Asian, 1.1% other
likewise Japan 98.5% Japanese, .5% Korean, .4% Chinese
Italy is 96% native Italian with the next largest group being Romanian
Greece, 91.5% native Greeks, 4.8% European, 1% Muslim from various nations., 3.7% other
Germany 80.8% German, 11.7% other European, 3.4% Turks
Norway 86% Germanic roots, 6% N America, Australia, or Europe), 8% (Asia, Africa, Latin America)
India 95% native to India, 5% Asian