[Andres]

Racial diversity and lower social capital are correlated, and I would still argue that racial diversity causes lower social capital. "Xenophobia" would be part of the mechanism through which this causation occurs.

Xenophobia would be the mechanism which causes the effect. Racial diversity is not what causes it, in the same way that letting go of a ball does not make it fall. Letting go of the ball and gravity are independent. Of course, one cannot turn off gravity, so any thinking person knows that letting go of a ball will result in gravity working. In contrast one can do something about xenophobia, which means that the correlation is not an argument against racial diversity unless one accepts xenophobia as unchangeable or desirable.

It is natural for humans to be more comfortable with people like themselves and thus more likely to engage in activities increasing social capital with people more like themselves.

I usually find strange when someone uses an appeal to naturalness when discussing human relations, as if the structure of human relations did not involve a myriad things that go against instinct, or as if those instincts could not be molded.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I'm with andres on this - the 'natural' argument is really just a cheap and rather irrelevant way of excusing racism/xenophobia.

The point is that we're looking at a social system here. If we accept that one possible 'solution' to making that system better is "getting rid of foreigners", we should also admit that another possible 'solution' to making that system better is to "make foreigners more welcome".

As we've been pointing out, since xenophobia itself is clearly a creator of poor integration consequences but its effects are unmeasured, it's really impossible to know how beneficial integration is once you remove xenophobia effects - ie. it's rather difficult to say that 'the immigrants' rather than 'the xenophobes' are the major problem. BUT without deciding on this, we can know that removing xenophobia effects will produce better integration to some degree... which is why the point still stands that where integration/immigration occurs we should be trying to welcome people and not shun them.

ALSO - to some extent we're just exploring the theory of integration. IF we were pursuing these studies to try to make policy decisions on integration, the burden would be even higher for the non-integrationists. Because, even if we assume negative effects because of integration, we would have to contrast these with the probable effects of actually taking *action* against integration if we were considering such a policy. In other words - would there actually be a worse result if a government tried to actively stop black people (for example) or foreigners (for example) moving to a particular area? My guess is the answer to that question is 'most certainly'.

[Dan]

Xenophobia would be the mechanism which causes the effect. Racial diversity is not what causes it, in the same way that letting go of a ball does not make it fall. Letting go of the ball and gravity are independent. Of course, one cannot turn off gravity, so any thinking person knows that letting go of a ball will result in gravity working.

I accept that.

I usually find strange when someone uses an appeal to naturalness when discussing human relations, as if the structure of human relations did not involve a myriad things that go against instinct, or as if those instincts could not be molded.

They could be; I just don't think it's going to work as well as many hope it will any time soon. Anti-racism socialization has been going for decades and this xenophobia still exists.

The point is that we're looking at a social system here. If we accept that one possible 'solution' to making that system better is "getting rid of foreigners", we should also admit that another possible 'solution' to making that system better is to "make foreigners more welcome".

And I'm not arguing against that. My simple argument was and is that "I might not agree with forced segregation, but to say there are no reasonable arguments in favour of the position is just silly." And it could be reasonably argued that racial diversity and lower social capital are correlated and that it would be easier to separate the races than get rid of "xenophobia", thus making life better for all races.

which is why the point still stands that where integration/immigration occurs we should be trying to welcome people and not shun them.

I've never argued against that. I am pro-legal immigration.

[KurtFF8]

And another point about integration being correlated with low social capital, it is also coming after decades of racial inequalities and segregation, so integration itself isn't the only solution to the problem, but tearing down socially constructed racial barriers through community building is another component for example.

Anti-racism socialization has been going for decades and this xenophobia still exists.

Well that's debatable too, there have been many efforts, yes. But there's still institutionalized racism, economic racism, etc. (Also "positive racism" is also quite prevalent in the media)

There's still plenty of work to be done.

[Andres]

They could be; I just don't think it's going to work as well as many hope it will any time soon. Anti-racism socialization has been going for decades and this xenophobia still exists.

I think it has worked somewhat. Three or four decades ago, US society seemed to be much more xenophobic than it is today. Even if I wouldn't qualify racial relations in the US as optimal today, I can see that there has been great advancements from the time of the civil rights movement. There are still great problems, including life in the projects, but I would not qualify the process as a failure.

And it could be reasonably argued that racial diversity and lower social capital are correlated and that it would be easier to separate the races than get rid of "xenophobia", thus making life better for all races.

But that was tried and I think you would readily admit that it was not better for the minority involved.

[Dan]

But that was tried and I think you would readily admit that it was not better for the minority involved.

That is true, but it could reasonably be argued that this was do more to poor/unequal implementation than the segregation itself. I wouldn't agree with that as "separate but equal" will always wind up screwing someone over, but that does not make the argument unreasonable.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I think it has worked somewhat. Three or four decades ago, US society seemed to be much more xenophobic than it is today.

A quick test - take a poll that looks at racism or racist sentiment and compare the stats you get for the 18-24 group and the 55+ group. Considering the 55+ group were still around before MLK's death, give it a couple more decades and even they'll be dead.

And it could be reasonably argued that racial diversity and lower social capital are correlated and that it would be easier to separate the races than get rid of "xenophobia", thus making life better for all races.

Woah. You've gone nowhere near justifying apartheid though. As I said, *even if* it's accepted that new migrants have less social capital and therefore (at least in the short term) have some sort of negative effect... you've got a long way to go from that to justifying enacting racist policies. You would argue that splitting up lots of people on PoFo from their partners for instance is 'reasonably arguable' to produce better results if they were of another 'race'?

I've never argued against that.

You do tend to rock the xenophobia boat though. Which at least makes for interesting debate.

[Dan]

Woah. You've gone nowhere near justifying apartheid though.

Probably not. It an argument like that would not seem to me to be enough to justify the resources and suffering created by enforced segregation.

As I said, *even if* it's accepted that new migrants have less social capital and therefore (at least in the short term) have some sort of negative effect...

The correlation would have less to do with the new migrants having less social capital and more to do with distrust/discomfort each race would have with the other leading to lower participation and interaction.

You would argue that splitting up lots of people on PoFo from their partners for instance is 'reasonably arguable' to produce better results if they were of another 'race'?

Individuals would not be the reason for the social capital loss. It would be more an aggregate loss from multiple groups of strangers living in close proximity. Even most of the American Renaissance-type folks seem to have little problem with individual inter-racial relationships or marriages. It's the aggregate effects of large groups that seems to be the problem to them.

You do tend to rock the xenophobia boat though. Which at least makes for interesting debate.

It's something I've been reading about on and off over the last while. I'd always grown up accepting the liberal idea of colour-blindness and, on an individual level, I still hold to that position entirely.

But in the last couple a number of things have all happened that made me examine this view.

I made a friend who I later learned was politically a national socialist, and to be honest, he is one of the friendliest people I've ever met (if anything he's sometimes a bit annoyingly over friendly). He's also a rational, intelligent person. So this made me rethink the stereotypical view indoctrinated into me that all racists are crazy, cruel, and stupid.

Then, I started reading columns by some on the internet on other topics, and while flipping through these columns these people would speak of how they're married to a Mexican woman and yet still oppose illegal immigration and still say things that about 6 years ago I would have been horrified at as being racist. And often they seem to use more rational arguments than those anti-racists opposed to them (who much too often for my liking seem just to try limit the free speech of those whose views are "racist" rather than debating back).

Then there's the times I've been all but called racist for my views on illegal immigration (where somehow I must hate Mexicans even though I fully support increased legal immigration), affirmative action (where somehow I'm racist for wanting colour-blind hiring policies), history (where somehow I'm racist because I don't think I should feel guilty because I'm white for what a bunch of dead British did 100 years ago), and natives (where somehow I'm racist for saying they should get off welfare, stop drinking, and get jobs which is something I'd say for anyone of any colour). So if people keep implying I'm racist, or my views are racist for what seems to be rational and just common sense to me than maybe not all those so-called "racists" are not as ignorant or hateful as I'd been indoctrinated to believe.

Because of these and other reasons I've been looking into the topic and PoFo is really the only moderately safe place where I can think through and refine my position on these topics without negative implications of being "racist" in RL.

So I'll take the xenophobic position at times, because I'm trying to think the related topics through. But overall, I still remain with the classic liberal idea of colour-blindness.

[Ombrageux]

The views of King are usually presented very narrowly indeed: They leave out his later focus on economic inequalities and his calls for Socialism. They don't show that not everyone agreed with non-violence as the only option for resistance.

QFT

There was also the issue of King's basic 'strategy' for enticing reform out of White America: get racist thugs to beat up your men/women/children on camera.

(that's putting it crudely but it's not too far from the truth..)

Oh, and here's your social disruption, 9 Negroes in a high school:

(No doubt planning to miscegenate)

And to quote a contemporary's 'reasonable opposition' (a prominent Southern politician made a similar argument but his name escapes me), a letter to TIME:

To impress the Asiatics, nine misguided political appointees have decided to change the way of life of 50 million Americans in 21 states of our great nation. If we red-blooded Southern Americans submit to this unconstitutional ''judge-made law" and surrender our Caucasian heritage of 60 centuries, the malignant powers of Communism, atheism and mongrelization will surely follow . . .