Is eliminating Diversity the Key to Peace?

[cthulu2016]

If the self-determination reflex is taken to its logical end, every group of people who feels distinct would self-determine their way into an enclave of that sort of person.

For instance, say the contiguous red states in the USA seceded.

With such political segregation we would have two nations that believed the other nation was an abomination. You can see the libertarian fantasy unraveling already... the whole enterprise presumes that nations (or states, counties, citizen enclaves, survival pits...) never do bad shit to each other.

Two sides who hate each other are concentrated into two bordering nations. Neither side has any internal political need for moderation.

Everything I hate about Republicans in concentrated form, right on our borders, and threatening us because we have reproductive freedom! And on their side, the moral crusade to save all those unborn souls up north... a good war if there ever was one, from their perspective.

That is not necessarily a recipe for peace.

Extreme demographic mismatch can be a recipe for civil war.

Extreme demographic segregation can be a recipe for regular war.

Such is the world of simplistic answers.

Thought experiment: Does our large Mexican-American voting population make a war with Mexico more or less likely? (It isn't likely in any event, but more or less?) If USA said America is anglo-only and threw out all Mexican Americans would the resulting USA and Mexico get along better or worse?

In America we view enclavism as disgusting, but we often think it ideal for others. We seek integration as a solution to racial division in America while sometimes wishing the Balkans divided into a dozen ethnic enclaves to promote racial harmony there.

It is true that a lot of wars arise from national borders not matching demographics. But it is also true that a lack of diversity promotes thinking of other nations as "others" with no core similarity.

Sometimes "self-determination" is desirable. Sometimes it is not. Always, it is promotion of demographic categories over the individual... the ironic "self."

The right answers will never fit on a bumper sticker.

[The2ndWheel]

1. Diversity is messy

Civilization doesn't really work without standardization. That's basically what war does; it standardizes the world. It allows one or the other organized effort, whoever wins the war, to mold the world in its image. Less conflict that way. When you agree with someone, there's not much to fight about.

Another thought experiment to some extent. Get 100 people, and group them together in 1 group of 100, or split them up into 10 groups of 10. Which is more diverse? Is there such a thing as more diverse? Does perspective matter? From the outside, the 10 groups doing things 10 different ways might look more diverse because they're doing things 10 different ways. From the inside, the single group of 100 doing things one way could look more diverse because the people could be more diverse.

[cthulu2016]

3. re: Your thought experiment

There is no standard of "diverse" (a messy term) so we would have to specify diverse along what axis. I agree that there is no automatic view of "diverse." The smaller the group the less homogeneous it would probably be so there would be more difference and less diversity.

So yes, my choice of "diversity" rather than "difference" is questionable. But since we have a mantra that "our diversity is our strength," it is odd that we often view other entities diversity as their weakness, and a thing that justice would eliminate.

I have been shocked by some of the casual declarations that Ukraine should be divided (as if anyone asked) along lines like who got 51% of the vote in the district in the last election.

Since a call to such secession in America would be viewed as the height of racial segregation (which it would be in its effect), and thus a horror, I am not sure why segregation is so obviously desirable elsewhere.

It may be, but it is hardly obvious from American first-principles.

[The2ndWheel]

8. Could be like any divorce I guess

If you're not in the relationship, it's easier to say break up. If you're in the relationship, it's much more complicated, and not as easy to just quit.

Plus we've seen that part of the world break up relatively recently. It's not unthinkable. It's probably a more difficult concept to apply to the US, since there is no home here. It's just an amalgam of different people that came here and moved around to break or get away from what was. Nobody ever says American as their nationality. It's German, Italian, Scottish, etc.

So if it's over there, it's more natural to break way from the center. Part of the way America was built was by people doing that. Whatever merits secession has, in America, the idea is possibly more a prisoner of history than in other parts of the world. In America, secessionists were the slave owners, so the word takes on a little bit of a different meaning than what its actual definition is. That's not normally the case in other parts of the world, at least not when the old Soviet Union is involved.

[DetlefK]

2. That has been China's philosophy for 2200 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China

The rise of the Qin-dynasty to the total control of China (in 221 BC) ended centuries of permanent warfare. From that period on, all earthly power in China was no longer split up on nobility, but unified in the person of the God-Emperor. A huge bureaucracy, loyal only to the God-Emperor himself, was founded to enforce homogeneity. At the same time, all of China got one set of laws. To prevent any reversal to the old days of strife and dissent, historical libraries were burnt and destroyed.

The chinese definition of harmony as a lack of dissent is deeply ingrained into their culture.

Europe on the other hand, has been at war with itself for the better part of 3 millennia. The western version of social peace treats dissent as an ongoing problem that is handled on a day-to-day-basis and not gotten rid of once and for all.

For example: I have read that scientific conferences in China are totally different than scientific conferences in the West. In the West, there is explicitly time reserved after a talk or lecture to question and criticize the speaker. In China, this is unusual as pointing out the lecturer's mistakes is considered incredibly impolite.

[cthulu2016]

4. Agreed, though China's a funny case. It has been conquered more often than Poland, but always

remains China. It absorbs its conquerors. (Ancient Egypt may have been similar in that way, and arguably Greece in some ways, but to a lesser degree.)

Having a unitary and sophisticated culture—more sophisticated than that of the conquerors—makes it so that the highest aspiration a conqueror could have would be to be Chinese.

Culture trumps all, I supose.

[MicaelS]

5. Scotland is another case in point.

I have seen people here claiming Scottish Independence from the UK is a wonderful idea. If I were living in the UK, I would think it was a terrible idea. Just like I think the idea of Texas seceding from the US is a terrible idea. And I have lived in Texas for the last 50 years.

[DemocraticWing]

9. There is a difference here.

The Scottish people are a nationality with a distinct culture and history. Scottish independence isn't a new idea, but one that's been debated within Scotland since the UK absorbed them, and before that was reality for centuries.

Texas was started relatively recently by Americans who moved there, and the residents today are their descendants, more Americans who moved there, and the Mexicans they stole it from.

[MNBrewer]

11. They came under unitary rule along with England with James I, didn't they?

[DemocraticWing]

12. Basically yes.

Although there was another century between that and the official Act of Union. The role of Scotland in the UK wasn't universally accepted, but from about 1745 to the 20th century there was a general consensus that a devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom was a preferred option. The independence movement was fairly dormant until Ireland became independent, and has slowly grown since.

The current debate is interesting, because the Scottish electorate seems split into three camps: supporters of the status quo, supporters of independence, and those who favor more devolution but remaining within the UK. Three option polling seems to indicate that those camps are roughly equal in size, but this year's referendum simply being a yes or no question means the election comes down to which way the moderates swing. Scots are substantially to the left of the English politically, and I think the SNP has capitalized on the fact that Conservatives are running the UK despite almost no support from Scotland. The referendum is an underdog to pass, but I wouldn't be shocked to see the independence advocates make a strong run at it in the next six months.

[rrneck]

6. The elimination of diversity is only possible with the elimination of change.

Each of us has individual interests and desires and the ability to act on them. Where those interests and desires align groups of like minded people will appear. As individuals and groups respond to changes in the environment, which includes other individuals and groups, disparate objectives and interests will come into conflict and be resolved.

I'm often reminded of the difference between a sparrow and a pigeon (or an F-16 and a 747). The more agile the system, the less stable it is in operation. The most agile of all exist on the edge of disaster.

[HereSince1628]

7. If we purged all Mexicans from America I doubt Mexico would want to trade with us

That's one problem with nationalism, it creates hard feelings that work against the interests of Capitalism. The rich elites which would prefer a one world economy in which all asymmetries in standards of living could be exploited for their profit and enjoyment.

[geek tragedy]

10. it depends on whether people they have positive obligations and duties to their neighbors

and to their communities and the people who share a state with them.

What Putin is peddling that is so dangerous is that people of Russian origin and who speak Russian should be considered loyal subjects of the Russian state, and that the Russian state has a right to use force to help them out wherever they live.

It willfully plays up Russian citizens of other states against their neighbors.