---

So you admit it CAN be POSITIVE?
If you do then I have no issue.

---

---

I'll check that. I think it might be because you added MANY  communities together and averaged things out.
The fact is that some communities are very diverse and still have a great income.

We are talking about the impact on a COMMUNITY and some communities enjoyed great income and prosperty.

Of course when you add things up over many communities and average things out then the results aren't as dramatic.

---

When it was majority-Hispanic, there wasn going to be lower per capita income than majority-White or "Asian"
That was why I had to add a few in to average it out.

---

never said it was but your generalizations aren't true all over. When you sy racial diversity is BAD for a community then you would be wrong.
If you admit that it simply affects it but can be either positive or negative then I have no issue.

---

What I will say is that there is a cultural and ethnic change in the community, and the specific group - Latin Americans probably in this case - bring their culture, customs, religion, language, and often more with them.

---

Maybe maybe not. It reelly depends on the people we are talking about. The problem is you think its BECAUSE of the fact that asians are there or latinos are there. You think it is BECAUSE of their particular  RACE.

The real reason is that asians tend to have higher incomes (especially in the Bay Area for example) because those asians are from elite immigrant families as you put it yourself.

Whereas many latinos immigrant tend to come from poorer less educated areas.

But it is NOT because one is asian (superior) and the other is latino (inferior).

The factors you use to justify that race is not neutral are not proven,

You just correlate the facts but as you saw yourself from the San Jose example there is no real CORRELATION.

It just happens because of the PARTICULAR situation in San Jose (and its true of any community)

---

I have not said "Asians" coming from richer families wouldn't make more than Latin Americans coming from third would countries. But, the fact is, you can't blame the deficit solely on that.

---

They do but this NOT necessarily because  of their race UNLESS you try to claim that RACISM is responsible  Is that really what you are claiming?

---

---

Sure. But up until now you though you could apply YOUR own community to every other community by making a blanket rule. You couldn't.

---

---

Um re-read my post. What you are saying has nothing to do with what I said.

---

Then again, I do admit majority-Latin American portions have lower per capita incomes.

---

Yes I have. AS I said many of those have more to do with stress and competion for jobs and shit like that thanatual hate. We can say that race X is beating up on race Y. But do we really know why?
Look at Germany in 1933. Before the great poverty and social problems which came from the treaty of versailles most Jews actually went along fine with Germans. They went to war with them/ They attendeded school and university with other germans. They created businesses and jobs for both jews and non-jews. Then the great economic crisis happened in Germany together with humilating defeat. Then suddenly ppl were competing for scarce jobs and starved. Then racial tension just went up in flames.

If you look at rich places where eveyone has jobs and money theres really little racial tenion. In areas where ppl are depressed and hopeless inter- racial tension and inter-racial tension is just up the roof.

That is what I am saying and trying to explain to you.

---

In Germany, and much of the rest of Europe, Jews lived in their own Jewish communities.
That was partially why Hitler disliked them, they were never going to be as German as anyone else. They were loyal to their own people before their country, he claimed.

Can you show me a rich, thriving community that is very mixed and has no racial tension?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

It is entirely dependent on what you think positive and negative is.

---

IN YOUR OPINION CAN RACE DIVERSITY HAVE A POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT?

Let us say that INCOME is one of those economic impacts do you agree that race diversity CAN bring out GREATER income to a community?

---

Well of course.
Look at this:

---

you originally spoke of a SINGLE COMMUNITY being mpacted by racial diversity.

If you group communities overall then OF COURSE overall racial diversity won't ALWAYS bring greater income. However you spoke of WITHIN A community.

I showed that many different examples of A community were NOT negatively impacted economically and were extremely prosperous.

---

How can an opinion be logically wrong?

---

---

What I will say is that there is a cultural and ethnic change in the community, and the specific group - Latin Americans probably in this case - bring their culture, customs, religion, language, and often more with them.

---

---

You're really telling me to take your word for it.

---

Now that you can see that CULTURE and RELIGION are also part of it then you can see on a wider range.

Think about the following

Back in the 19th century and early 20th a lot of stigma was attached to being Catholic.

Most of it came from some clash of culture between protestants and catholics and some old hatred from the wars of religions etc..

So Catholic whites were considered the minoirity and were looked down upon. Catholic british, catholic irish, catholic polish, catholic italians were all considered negatively, They tended to be poor and uneducated and often joined gangs and committed crimes in more amount than WASPs,

Some ppl believed it was related to their faith, that something was wrong with "papism" as they called it. That the religon itself was a failure and created people with no morals and losers.

Today you would be hard pressed to find anyoe who thinks that way seriously. Excpet some born again christians maybe but they at least criticize the tenets of the faith itself NOT the catholics themselves.

What I am telling you here is that its easy to look at the result NOW and say well this group or that group is not doing too well economically or in education so it MUST BE because of their race or their genes.

In fact it could be because of social factors. What affects latinos is not the same always as what affects asians. What affected many catholics was not the same as what affected protestants.

However we often notice that once the stigma is removed and more understanding happens and less focus on ppl's religion is placed to view them negatively or positively THEN suddenly it does not matter ananymore.

When a person is judged the same whether catholic or protestant then all the social burden and problems often become less important.

Today many Catholics are as affluent and educated as Protestants because no one is busy anymore hounding them down with it.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Fuck man you should be a lawyer. You are a master at twisting words out of their meaning.
IN YOUR OPINION CAN RACE DIVERSITY HAVE A POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT?

Let us say that INCOME is one of those economic impacts do you agree that race diversity CAN bring out GREATER income to a community?

---

---

BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU ORIGINAL SAID.
you originally spoke of a SINGLE COMMUNITY being mpacted by racial diversity.

If you group communities overall then OF COURSE overall racial diversity won't ALWAYS bring greater income. However you spoke of WITHIN A community.

I showed that many different examples of A community were NOT negatively impacted economically and were extremely prosperous.

---

I took your example of San Jose and if fell flat on it's face.
Not all of it is diverse, and when you factor in the less-diverse portions, the per capita income raises significantly.

---

I am not. I am simply telling to CONSIDER other possible factors than just race/genetics.
Now that you can see that CULTURE and RELIGION are also part of it then you can see on a wider range.

---

---

Think about the following

Back in the 19th century and early 20th a lot of stigma was attached to being Catholic.

Most of it came from some clash of culture between protestants and catholics and some old hatred from the wars of religions etc..

So Catholic whites were considered the minoirity and were looked down upon. Catholic british, catholic irish, catholic polish, catholic italians were all considered negatively, They tended to be poor and uneducated and often joined gangs and committed crimes in more amount than WASPs,

Some ppl believed it was related to their faith, that something was wrong with "papism" as they called it. That the religon itself was a failure and created people with no morals and losers.

Today you would be hard pressed to find anyoe who thinks that way seriously. Excpet some born again christians maybe but they at least criticize the tenets of the faith itself NOT the catholics themselves.

What I am telling you here is that its easy to look at the result NOW and say well this group or that group is not doing too well economically or in education so it MUST BE because of their race or their genes.

In fact it could be because of social factors. What affects latinos is not the same always as what affects asians. What affected many catholics was not the same as what affected protestants.

However we often notice that once the stigma is removed and more understanding happens and less focus on ppl's religion is placed to view them negatively or positively THEN suddenly it does not matter ananymore.

When a person is judged the same whether catholic or protestant then all the social burden and problems often become less important.

Today many Catholics are as affluent and educated as Protestants because no one is busy anymore hounding them down with it.

---

Are people being oppressed because of their religion today, thus have lower income and IQ and higher crime?

I'm not saying Latin Americans and people from East Asia have the exact same circumstances.
I don't know anyone that does.

You can say their poverty is a result of their circumstances. Someone else could say their circumstances is a result of their poverty, and they will continue to stay poor if given the same opportunity of Whites or people from East Asia.

There are about the same percentage of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation Latin Americans immigrants that graduated from college.
They had the opportunity to go to immigrate to America, go to school, move somewhere else in the USA, have kids, let them go to school, move somewhere else, and have kids to go to the same school as White and Black Americans.
It's odd because Negroes have more college graduates than 3rd generation Latin Americans.

It's also nice to note that Latin American peoples who do recieve colelged degrees recieve higher wages than Whites (With the same job and education and circumstances)

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"