11-14-2016, 04:19 PM
I was reading up on Keith Ellison, the guy who wants to be the new Chair of the DNC , to see what the fuss was about and something I read on his Issues page made me think about diversity and why does (or doesn't) it work. I stumbled across this interview NPR had with a Harvard political scientist back in 2007 and was curious what a liberal professor say about the subject on a liberal radio show. Especially pre-Obama who many think has had a hand in the widening racial divide in America since he took office in 2008.
It's an interesting interview based on a study the Harvard professor was part of on the subject of, "to measure the level of civic engagement and the number of friends people have and how they got along with their local government and so on, in 40 very different communities, places you've heard of like Los Angeles or Boston or Atlanta or Detroit or Chicago, and places you haven't heard, little rural counties in the South Dakota or up in the Appalachias in West Virginia, or villages in New Hampshire - places all over."
Some of these places are very diverse, obviously the bigger cities, and some not so much. There is some interesting stuff the guy says about how the more diverse a neighborhood or community is, the more people tend to not be trusting of the folks around them- even of people their own race.
He said this, "I think part of it is that when we're around a lot of people who we don't know very well and whose cultural backgrounds and moves we don't know very well, we don't know quite how to read anybody. So we don't know if when somebody looks at us, you know, square on, does that mean hi, glad to have you here, or does that mean get out of my way?
And so I think all of us - you know, this is not a matter of liberal or conservative. It's not a matter of old or young or rich or poor. We all, it turns out, seem to be a little defensive. And to pull in, as I say, to hunker down - we have fewer friends. The only two things that go up as the diversity of your census track goes up are protest marches and television watching."
He goes on to explain how he visited some mega-churches and saw how diverse they were, even in places that still have segregation issues, yet there was harmony because something bigger than their ethnicity was the focus. He also mentioned the US Army and the same cohesion because for a period of time in their lives, these people from all different backgrounds were part of something that was bigger than those backgrounds. Military folks in general will have a more diverse group of friends than any other group, even (and sadly often) moreso than church folks, because the military pretty much puts you where you end up and you don't have a choice.
This can be seen now with all of the people who are rioting and protesting the election results. It's a diverse group in ethnicity and socioeconomics but their cohesion comes from their ideals, their belief in something bigger than themselves. In this case that would be either Trump's win or Clinton's loss which are not necessarily synonymous with each other. Regardless of how they see the failure their ultimate focus is Clinton is not POTUS-elect and that makes them a group of folks that in it's entirety perhaps doesn't have anything in common in daily life.
Even here on this board there are folks who see polar opposite on political issues but very much agree on other subjects. Minorcan and I don't see eye to eye politically but we have the same ideas on what good TV shows and movies are. And I think right now we can all agree the Jaguars are abysmal.
Anyway, I thought it to be an interesting read and figured I would share it to get some of your opinions on the subject. He did say he believes in the long run we can become a better country because of our diversity and people will adapt, but again this was in 2007. A great deal has changed since then.
It's an interesting interview based on a study the Harvard professor was part of on the subject of, "to measure the level of civic engagement and the number of friends people have and how they got along with their local government and so on, in 40 very different communities, places you've heard of like Los Angeles or Boston or Atlanta or Detroit or Chicago, and places you haven't heard, little rural counties in the South Dakota or up in the Appalachias in West Virginia, or villages in New Hampshire - places all over."
Some of these places are very diverse, obviously the bigger cities, and some not so much. There is some interesting stuff the guy says about how the more diverse a neighborhood or community is, the more people tend to not be trusting of the folks around them- even of people their own race.
He said this, "I think part of it is that when we're around a lot of people who we don't know very well and whose cultural backgrounds and moves we don't know very well, we don't know quite how to read anybody. So we don't know if when somebody looks at us, you know, square on, does that mean hi, glad to have you here, or does that mean get out of my way?
And so I think all of us - you know, this is not a matter of liberal or conservative. It's not a matter of old or young or rich or poor. We all, it turns out, seem to be a little defensive. And to pull in, as I say, to hunker down - we have fewer friends. The only two things that go up as the diversity of your census track goes up are protest marches and television watching."
He goes on to explain how he visited some mega-churches and saw how diverse they were, even in places that still have segregation issues, yet there was harmony because something bigger than their ethnicity was the focus. He also mentioned the US Army and the same cohesion because for a period of time in their lives, these people from all different backgrounds were part of something that was bigger than those backgrounds. Military folks in general will have a more diverse group of friends than any other group, even (and sadly often) moreso than church folks, because the military pretty much puts you where you end up and you don't have a choice.
This can be seen now with all of the people who are rioting and protesting the election results. It's a diverse group in ethnicity and socioeconomics but their cohesion comes from their ideals, their belief in something bigger than themselves. In this case that would be either Trump's win or Clinton's loss which are not necessarily synonymous with each other. Regardless of how they see the failure their ultimate focus is Clinton is not POTUS-elect and that makes them a group of folks that in it's entirety perhaps doesn't have anything in common in daily life.
Even here on this board there are folks who see polar opposite on political issues but very much agree on other subjects. Minorcan and I don't see eye to eye politically but we have the same ideas on what good TV shows and movies are. And I think right now we can all agree the Jaguars are abysmal.
Anyway, I thought it to be an interesting read and figured I would share it to get some of your opinions on the subject. He did say he believes in the long run we can become a better country because of our diversity and people will adapt, but again this was in 2007. A great deal has changed since then.