Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Where we should aim Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Aimforthehead Posted at 10:27 am on June 30, 2009 So, we have a black president, black CEO's, black managers, black doctors, blacks talk show hosts, I think our next major step to erasing racism, would be getting to the point where we say, "So what?"

Replies kidd rune Posted at 1:58 pm on July 3, 2009 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? I'd say it's possible. 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. Yet when you look at them directly, such as San Jose, the more diverse parts are poorer than the least diverse. 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. I never blamed it solely on race and you're mistaken if you thought I ever did. 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. You admitted yourself that nobody thinks that way except for some "born again christians" so does religion really have an effect on San Jose? 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) jakelong Posted at 1:24 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:27 am on July 3, 2009 It is entirely dependent on what you think positive and negative is. 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? Well of course. Look at this: 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. How can an opinion be logically wrong? Oh so it was an OPINION NOT a claim? So long as that is clear then 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. That is true. You're really telling me to take your word for it. 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. kidd rune Posted at 10:27 am on July 3, 2009 So you admit it CAN be POSITIVE? If you do then I have no issue. It is entirely dependent on what you think positive and negative is. So, it's a question you must ask yourself. I can't tell what you think is good or bad. 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. Well of course. Look at this: http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/p5ghf3madn0kkl1uma9i.jpg 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. How can an opinion be logically wrong? Perhaps you disagree, I wouldn't be surprised. But if someone says diversity in San Jose "Bad" someone else can look at the same data and say it's "good" and neither will be wrong. It's an opinion. 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) You're really telling me to take your word for it. Regardless, when Latin Americans bring their culture to San Jose and other places, they bring much more than that. They bring the remnants of their life in the third world. They lived their whole life in a third world country, and they're bringing it here. Too many Mexicans have allegiance to Mexico - not the USA - and that's not good at all for our country. Many Mexicans openly state they want to retake the Western USA for Mexico. Guess who's immigrating there? 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? Race and racism are two different things. It may have to do with their race. I don't know. We call studies trying to figure this out "Scientific racism" and they are horribly frowned upon. 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. I did not. Um re-read my post. What you are saying has nothing to do with what I said. You walking around San Jose and reporting your views does not strike me as more important or informative as the charts I have given. 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. You're looking at the picture from too far away, Jake. 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? jakelong Posted at 12:32 am on July 3, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:20 pm on July 2, 2009 I said when a minority gains in numbers, it has an effect on the community. I did not specify positive or negative. Simple, it depends. So you admit it CAN be POSITIVE? If you do then I have no issue. You used San Jose as an example of diversity being POSITIVE, while I showed the less diverse areas of San Jose have higher per capita incomes than the more diverse. 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.   Remember, we're only speaking of San Jose, and San Jose is not a representation of earth 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. I don't think race is neutral. I'd say if an area was partially White and partially "Asian," it would probably have a higher per capita income than if it was Hispanic and another group. 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'm sure you would agree that Whites and "Asians" have more money than Hispanics usually, San Jose being no exception. 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? To me examples like my neighborhood show that it can. 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. There are many more variables to consider. I agree here. I pretty much know that majority latino hoods are low income. I come from one. But looking at many areas in san jose and seeing them for my self I can tell you all that race diversity bring tenstion crap is just mainly in YOUR head. I knew absolutely nothing about income, racial makeup, and the like about San Jose until this thread. Um re-read my post. What you are saying has nothing to do with what I said. I'd say, have you heard of the term racial tension at all? Did anyone say these ethnic changes are the SOLE tension-bringers? 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. kidd rune Posted at 10:20 pm on July 2, 2009 The source is compiled here: http://www.mediafire.com/?aj2vowojmtm All I did was transfer the data from http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/Census/Income.xls and http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/Census/Race.xls (2nd tab) I merged them into one spreadsheet, took out the unnecessary data, and processed the information. I gave you the excel file so you can check my work. I am contradicting myself? Heavens no. Firstly, to contradict I have to prove the opposite when I claim something else. So I would have had to say it was good. I didn't. I said when a minority gains in numbers, it has an effect on the community. I did not specify positive or negative. Simple, it depends. You asserted "And they CAN'T have a POSITIVE effect of course?" While I responded with something like "I didn't say that" And I didn't. You used San Jose as an example of diversity being POSITIVE, while I showed the less diverse areas of San Jose have higher per capita incomes than the more diverse. Remember, we're only speaking of San Jose, and San Jose is not a representation of earth. Just another example of your lack of honesty. You can't believe that race is NEUTRAL. You WANT to believe that its is negative and yuou will go to great length to prove it. Your claim I was dishonest was due to your implications and misunderstandings. Stop it. I don't think race is neutral. Looking at this map: http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/p5ghf3madn0kkl1uma9i.jpg I'd say if an area was partially White and partially "Asian," it would probably have a higher per capita income than if it was Hispanic and another group. I'm sure you would agree that Whites and "Asians" have more money than Hispanics usually, San Jose being no exception. I'm not trying to prove race is negative. I don't even know what that means. To me examples like the silver creek neighbohood and many other like it just shows that race diversity does not necessarily bring problems. To me examples like my neighborhood show that it can. The fact is, nowhere in this thread did I say when an area becomes diverse, and the only change is the racial makeup, it immediately fails and begins to have numerous problems. There are many more variables to consider. I pretty much know that majority latino hoods are low income. I come from one. But looking at many areas in san jose and seeing them for my self I can tell you all that race diversity bring tenstion crap is just mainly in YOUR head. I knew absolutely nothing about income, racial makeup, and the like about San Jose until this thread. All of my beliefs based on it are based on what I posted here. This map is very informative And it CLEARLY hints at a conclusion I did not give before that post. Most tension comes more from stress from lack of job lack of prospect and other issues than because OMG this are is latino or black and therefore BAD. I'd say, have you heard of the term racial tension at all? Did anyone say these ethnic changes are the SOLE tension-bringers? jakelong Posted at 9:54 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 1:39 pm on July 2, 2009 Their average being about 84% a majority. They averaged a per capita income of $28,920.  Had no majority. The average % of the most populous group was 35.2% Their average income? Brace yourself: $23,422 Can you tell me where exactly you got that data. Not just the top link but the precise link where you got that. Anyway seems to me you are contradicting what you said earlier regarding the lack of correlation between race diversity and income. Seems to me you went through a LOT of trouble to try to make a point that race diversity is NEGATIVE an not neutral as you claimed earlier. Just another example of your lack of honesty. You can't believe that race is NEUTRAL. You WANT to believe that its is negative and yuou will go to great length to prove it. To me examples like the silver creek neighbohood and many other like it just shows that race diversity does not necessarily bring problems. I pretty much know that majority latino hoods are low income. I come from one. But looking at many areas in san jose and seeing them for my self I can tell you all that race diversity bring tenstion crap is just mainly in YOUR head. Most tension comes more from stress from lack of job lack of prospect and other issues than because OMG this are is latino or black and therefore BAD. kidd rune Posted at 2:15 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from jakelong at 4:49 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 1:39 pm on July 2, 2009 Found some nonWhite Hispanic statistics. Are we still speaking of San Jose, the whole nation, the whole world? What? You make all those calculations and you don't say what you used as source. San Jose. I updated my post too. EDIT: Here is the excel file. It's quite messy, but you can take the numbers and connect them to what they mean. http://www.mediafire.com/?aj2vowojmtm jakelong Posted at 1:49 pm on July 2, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 1:39 pm on July 2, 2009 Found some nonWhite Hispanic statistics. Are we still speaking of San Jose, the whole nation, the whole world? What? You make all those calculations and you don't say what you used as source. kidd rune Posted at 1:39 pm on July 2, 2009 Found some nonWhite Hispanic statistics. Yay? Alright, when one racial group - either the groups labeled non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Asian, or Hispanic is at least 50% of the population, the average per capita income is $28,585. When there is no majority population, the average per capita income is $24,092. This is when I omit '5123.04, which has a per capita income of "0" and obviously obscures the results (It has one White and one multiracial person). Thus, it's fair to conclude census tracts with a racial majority have an average of $4,493 higher income than census tracts with no racial majority. Also, just for fun, I took the 10 tracts with the highest % majority: 5127.00, 5026.01, 5068.04, 5031.13, 5017.00, 5059.00, 5030.01, 5037.02, 5034.01, and 5068.02 Their majority % was 87.5, 87.1657754, 84.65244322, 84.55823293, 84.53535532, 83.5078534, 82.683111, 80.08144688, 79.79641132, 79.59806665. Their average being about 84% a majority. They averaged a per capita income of $28,920. The 10 most diverse tracts: 5038.02, 5120.23, 5009.02, 5120.20, 5031.08, 5033.27, 5043.18, 5033.12, 5009.01, and 5033.22 Had no majority. The average % of the most populous group was 35.2% Their average income? Brace yourself: $23,422 Let's show some graphs now! From the top 10 of each I just showed: http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/7fn5xyym1g6m7ymz6rc5.jpg For the average of tracts with an ethnic majority vs tracts without one (First stats): http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/pv8fl68vi79gujgdqk0.jpg Jake, I'd like your take on why the most diverse tracts have significantly lower per capita incomes than the least diverse tracts. I'd also like your take on why tracts WITH majorities have higher per capita incomes than those WITHOUT majorities, and the difference of per capita income INCREASES when you choose only the top 10 of each. EDIT: The most revealing map: http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/7gfxlk98zo79tgdjyhhw.jpg The data: Code: ...range.......num....per capita income 75+.............20......$31,634.80 65-74.99........41......$29,151.51 57.5-64.99......37......$27,943.00 50-57.49........34......$26,805.26 40-49.99........43......$24,813.02 0-39.99.........19......$23,726.63 EDIT2: http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/p5ghf3madn0kkl1uma9i.jpg I was just curious... whoisabs Posted at 9:49 am on July 2, 2009 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_200710/ai_n25139928/ that article explains a bit of the difference between circumstances TheOtherHorseman Posted at 9:44 am on July 2, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:28 am on July 1, 2009 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:41 am on July 1, 2009 I lived in a not only predominately but solely black area for a year and didn't have a single issue at all, so from personal experience alone I'm more with Aimforthehead on this. This is where your problem is. Racial tension does not come about when you're the sole or one of the very few people of a different race. That's of course a given. But when a minority group starts to gain in numbers, such happens. They begin to have an effect on the community. Apparently, you're the White kid. They have no problems with Whites because you're the only one. Ten of us shared the house. jakelong Posted at 10:49 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 9:02 pm on July 1, 2009 That's a faulty conclusion If there is NO CORRELATION between racial diversification and income then you can't justify the claim that racial diversification had any impact positive or negative.   No impact is no impact: postive OR negative.   you did not see a comparison of the portions BEFORE and AFTER they were 'diversified' Actually my area has always been pretty diverse anyway. I have no data yet on this but it seems to me that the bay area has become actually MORE diverse and MORE affluent over time.   Again though even if that was true it does not mean there is a correlation. But it would mean that the impact was not negative. This was not said, and one specific example isn't enough to say this rule is true or not. You like to use the "One example to disprove the rule" all the time. You did not even believe what I was saying about my area being diverse AND affluent and thought I was lying. You've been shown. We can say "Increased racial diversity usually does/doesn't result in lower income" If you really feel that increased diversity usually doesn't result in lower income then why you favor DECREASED racial diversity?   There is more dark red than light red. I have no idea how you really made that map. You have not provided your methods. just the sources you used.   Hispanics are often called "White" by US standards (Lol?) when they aren't. That is YOUR opinion. Nothing more. Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Mexicans, and others are called White by the USA, when they aren't. Because some are. But of course they don't use YOUR standards for whiteness (95%).   Can you restate this? When ppl go one about how this or that area is full of fail while their own area is not the best then they are opening themselves up for ready comebacks. I really do not care about attacking Waco itself and I don't get why you mention it in THIS thread. It was mentioned in ANOTHER thread.   We only looked at one place, for one time, and one subject. You often use one study at one time for one subject to support your claims.   The fact is that I do not try unlike you to make some general claim. I am saying that YOUR general claims are faulty because they can be easily countered by a single example.   I am simply showing that its wrong to say that racial divesity creates problems in general since it doesn't in many communities.   The fact is that as you discovered yourself racial diversity has NO CORRELATION positive or negative in my city.   Diversity, be it racial, religious, or anything like that is often the center of many conflicts. The cause of conflicts comes from many sources that have NOTHING to do with diversity but more to do with power struggle. People who are the same race same religion same ethnicty same qhatever you may call it have gone to wars and killed each other.   In fact both history and stats show that there are MORE conflicts going INSIDE religions INSIDE race INSIDE nations INSIDE continents than between them. In a study by the UN between 1989-92, 82 conflicts were found that resulted in a thousand or more deaths, and 79 of them involved ethnic/religious antagonisms inside of one nation. People use various reasons to justify their conflicts. Tell me why people would even hate Irish ppl in England http://golivewire.com/forums/peer-ynbnbpb-support-a.html Why would English and French hate each other long before English became protestants. Why did Germans and British have so many conflicts when they are the same race and same religion. Why did the Vandals sack Rome? There is ALWAYS a reason ppl can find to justify hate and killing. Why is it that people in the US don't tear each other apart even though they have different religions? Maybe because they have come here to escape religious persecution and made religous tolerance on the most important part of the US constitution. kidd rune Posted at 9:02 pm on July 1, 2009 Looking at your own map it shows that racial diversity has NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on income or social status for the areas. That's a faulty conclusion - you did not see a comparison of the portions BEFORE and AFTER they were 'diversified' They did not show it because it was not meant to show. And its false to assume that having more diversity results in lower income as well. This was not said, and one specific example isn't enough to say this rule is true or not. We can say "Increased racial diversity usually does/doesn't result in lower income" That actually doesn't really follow from your map or any map. There is more dark red than light red. Because you don't consider hispanics to be white? Hispanics are often called "White" by US standards (Lol?) when they aren't. Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Mexicans, and others are called White by the USA, when they aren't. I don't really care to tell the truth. When ppl go into xxx is full of fail when they own area isn't so hot they don't have much of aleg to stand on. Can you restate this? True and that was my exact point. However the fact that MORE diversity does not destroy affluence or income kills your claims that tension and social problems show up when racial diversity occurs. We only looked at one place, for one time, and one subject. Faulty conclusions. Diversity, be it racial, religious, or anything like that is often the center of many conflicts. In a study by the UN between 1989-92, 82 conflicts were found that resulted in a thousand or more deaths, and 79 of them involved ethnic/religious antagonisms inside of one nation. This is diversity. Racial/ethnic and religious. 79 conflicts with 1000 or more deaths, Jake. Maybe I should say "Less diversity is NOT NECESSARILY a good thing" instead   Since you can retract and twist what you orignally say I can too. Yeah, people can change their minds. I have no objections to that. jakelong Posted at 7:35 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:00 pm on July 1, 2009 You must understand that Waco is a college town for a large baptist college. I don't really care to tell the truth. When ppl go into xxx is full of fail when they own area isn't so hot they don't have much of aleg to stand on. There is no correlation between diversity and income at all. True and that was my exact point. However the fact that MORE diversity does not destroy affluence or income kills your claims that tension and social problems show up when racial diversity occurs. Your fraudulent "LESS diversity is not a good thing" achieves scattered results. Maybe I should say "Less diversity is NOT NECESSARILY a good thing" instead   Since you can retract and twist what you orignally say I can too. jakelong Posted at 7:24 pm on July 1, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 6:56 pm on July 1, 2009 In San Jose California, is racial diversity consistent with higher income? The funny thing is that is not what I said. Stop pretending I say something to fit your claim. Looking at your own map it shows that racial diversity has NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on income or social status for the areas. It's false to assume that having more diversity, meaning no majority, will result in higher income. And its false to assume that having more diversity results in lower income as well. What's interesting to note is that there are more high-income with race majority than high-income with no race majority. That actually doesn't really follow from your map or any map. This annoyed me. Because you don't consider hispanics to be white? Most recent 15 of 62 previous replies displayed.