Ethnic Diversity’s ‘Inconvenient Truths’

Vancouver Sun, February 9, 2014

Are you engaged with your community? Or are you “hunkering down?”

Are you connecting with friends, volunteering or involved in politics? Or are you drawing into yourself, “like a turtle?”

Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has completed an important study of more than 30,000 North Americans and concluded that–especially if you live in ethnically diverse cities such as Toronto, Vancouver or Los Angeles–it’s likely you are “hunkering down.”

That’s the colloquial phrase that Putnam, who has been an adviser to everyone from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to the U.S. State Department and the World Bank, uses to describe the lack of trust he discovered among most North Americans in diverse urban settings.

Since geographers rank Greater Toronto and Metro Vancouver respectively the third and fourth most “hyper-diverse” cities in the world–more than 45 per cent of the residents of each metropolis are born outside the country–Putnam’s findings are more than relevant to these regions.

Indeed, when the Vancouver Foundation recently conducted a massive survey of Metro Vancouver residents, researchers discovered most people in this West Coast city feel unusually high levels of loneliness and lack of friends.

Even though Putnam realized the results of his own research into diversity challenged his promulticultural values, he still holds hope that immigration may have long-term benefits in North America if handled responsibly by politicians. Some Canadian politicians are starting to respond.

Still, the author of the classic book Bowling Alone, which chronicles the decline in civil engagement in North America since the 1950s, has felt contradictory feelings as his findings have been confirmed by researchers in Canada, Sweden, Peru, Pakistan, Kenya and beyond.

He has realized neither of the two dominant North American myths about multiculturalism are accurate.

In contrast to conservatives’ beliefs, Putnam says multicultural diversity doesn’t necessarily lead to open “conflict” among people of different ethnic groups. “Race riots” and violence do not often break out.

On the other hand, contrary to liberals’ dreams, Putnam did not find people of different ethnicities inevitably discover “harmony” or enjoy “fusion.”

Putnam’s survey of 41 American cities and towns found people in ethnically diverse regions tend to be polite–but also disengaged and wary.

While Putnam believes there may be long-term benefits for some from immigration (including enhanced scientific and intellectual innovation), he’s become convinced the short-term effect on most cities is a drop in “social capital.”

People in diverse urban regions tend to seek shelter in their own little worlds. “Diversity, at least in the short run, seems to bring out the turtle in all of us. . . . The more ethnically diverse the people we live around, the less we trust them.“

Putnam adds an additional disturbing discovery–that “in-group trust, too, is lower in more diverse settings.” In other words, people also become more distrustful even of members of their own ethnic group.

“Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, vote less . . . have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television,” Putnam writes in his report E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st century.

The Vancouver Foundation survey of 3,800 diverse Metro residents confirmed Putnam’s results. It found one in four Metro residents feels alone more often than they would like, one-third consider Vancouver a difficult place to make friends, most don’t socialize with their neighbours, half don’t volunteer and most feel that, while diversity is generally a good thing, they prefer to be with members of their own ethnic group.

More than half of respondents, of all ethnicities, also agreed that Vancouver is becoming a resort town for the wealthy and that there is too much foreign ownership of real estate.

Since Putnam first uncovered his “inconvenient truths” about the downside of diversity, he has extensively “kicked the tires” of his studies to see if other reasons could explain a lack of mutual regard in multicultural societies.

But he’s failed to find evidence to contradict his own findings. Indeed, many others have confirmed them, including Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, author ofTriumph of the City; American academics Edward Miguel, Matthew Kahn and Dora Costa; and Oxford economist Paul Collier, author of Exodus: How Migration is Changing the World.

As Putnam summarizes, higher diversity leads to “lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media . . . less expectation others will cooperate to solve dilemmas . . . less likelihood of working on a community project . . . lower likelihood of giving to charity . . . and less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.”

One of the most serious downsides of greater diversity, emphasize Putnam and others, is people become more reluctant to pay taxes.

Glaeser, Collier and others have discovered higher ethnic diversity leads to more reluctance to redistribute wealth. In high-immigrant societies, Glaeser found the relatively well-off have less empathy for those on lower incomes because they don’t see them as being basically like themselves.

Collier is among those who speculates decades-long anti-tax campaigns in California–which have led to decaying road systems and battered public schools–could relate to the state’s high ethnic diversity. California has more immigrants than any other U.S. state. What’s to be done? The first thing Putnam seeks is that people on the political right and left get over their blind spots.

“It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity,” writes Putnam.

“It would be equally unfortunate if an historical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable.”

Putnam’s ideas for overcoming the divisive effects of diversity demand going beyond “tolerance”; they focus on “creating more opportunities for meaningful interaction across ethnic lines.”

Last month Vancouver city council seemed to heed Putnam’s suggestions–in a small way–when it created a “citizen’s assembly” for the Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood.

Mayor Gregor Robertson also began to champion a “Mayor’s Engaged City Task Force,” which will look at ways to make the region less alienating for existing residents and immigrants.

The task force’s proposals include sponsoring neighbourhood potlucks, adding more “communal” tables to restaurants and redesigning condominiums for enhanced human interaction.

Putnam, in addition, stresses that governments need to help North American immigrants improve their English (or French) and better fund overwhelmed educational and health facilities.

Transcending the mistrust associated with ethnic diversity will not come quickly or easily. But Putnam remains hopeful it can be done if public officials more frankly face the problem, adjust immigration levels and become more creative.

As a liberal, Putnam puts faith in the advice of the early 20th-century sociologist Max Weber, who stressed civil societies can slowly overcome intransigent predicaments–because “politics is a slow boring of hard boards.”

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • NorthernWind

    Diversity is Canada’s greatest strength and you had better believe it, otherwise the Ministry of Inclusion will have to pay you a visit.

    • benvad

      Just ask Mark Steyn, he could tell you all about it.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      The only thing ethnic diversity has ever done for Canada is increase the amount of feces in Lake Ontario and the Fraser River.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    He has realized neither of the two dominant North American myths about multiculturalism are accurate.
    ——————

    Not good for the old career that…

    • Oil Can Harry

      Putnam is a True Believer.

      When his research showed diversity is a disaster he deluded himself into thinking diversity is only bad in the short run; in the long run it will work! Someday.

      We just have to keep waiting, like Linus and the Great Pumpkin.

      • Mentious

        Well, I guess in the long run the distinct cultures and even genotypes/peoples could finally be sadly lost, destroyed, obliterated. Then I guess he could finally say “Diversity Worked!”

  • Massif1

    “Even though Putnam realized the results of his own research into diversity challenged his promulticultural values”

    Something tells me Robert Putnam lives far away from blacks and hispanics. He probably has to drive for two hours just to get to work and somehow he still manages to promote diversity. I always find it somewhat interesting how whites working in D.C. live hours away and still can’t figure out why they need to live in a community that has no black people.

    • Nancy Thomas

      Like Tim Wise.

      • maxsnafu

        …the main difference being that while Putnam is self-deceptive Wise is evil.

    • MBlanc46

      I suspect he lives within walking distance of Harvard Yard.

  • Spartacus

    “While Putnam believes there may be long-term benefits for some from
    immigration (including enhanced scientific and intellectual innovation),
    he’s become convinced the short-term effect on most cities is a drop in
    “social capital.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    So… You claim such idiocy right after you yourself disproved it ? And people like this are considered “intelectuals” and “scholars” by most people ? Disgusting, and yet ANOTHER proof to put on my list of “Why the world would be better if Germany had won the war” ,

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Enhanced scientific…what? I thought, according to yesterday’s tech article, that these minorities couldn’t even “find the ladder”.

      Yeah, introduction of people with IQ’s of 10 to 30 points lower, then breeding with them, sure should help with the techie breakthroughs…

      Maybe the author figgered he’d have to throw some bone out there to avoid a carer ending fracas.

    • Jerrybear

      I used to have that sort of thinking but I have come to believe that promoting a totalitarian heartless regime isn’t the best way to persuade people to your way of thinking. Had America and England stayed out of World War I, Germany would have easily defeated the French and Russians. Then there would have been no Hitler, no Versailles Treaty, no Holocaust (for the Jews in Hollywood to make endless white guilt propaganda), and 50 million whites wouldn’t have had to die. We wouldn’t be guilt tripped ninnies who believe that we have to let the cesspools of the third world take over our nations to atone for our sins.

      • Spartacus

        1. The regime was no more heartless than what it was fighting against. Ask any survivor of Dresden, Hiroshima or the Gulag, and they’ll agree with me.
        2. Germany could not have won WWI even if the US and England had stayed out of it . Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf about the internal sabotage going on in Germany, as well as the overall incompetence of the German military leadership .
        3. There was no Holocaust.
        4. Don’t care what the lemmings think . The system is weakening itself every time darkie jumps the fence or swims in White lands, while we grow stronger every day. If we are strong enough when the right time comes, they’ll follow us blindly and without thinking about it, just like they do the system today .

        • Paul

          ‘Germany could not have won WWI even if the US and England had stayed out of it’ ?

          Not only could they have won it,they DID win it. England, France and Russia were essentially beaten and the US certainly wouldn’t stayed and have lost large numbers of soldiers in the trenches. The sabotage was what ended their war.

          • Spartacus

            I mentioned the sabotage…

          • NeanderthalDNA

            The US is the only thing in the end that stopped Germany from winning WW1. Russia was out, France had suffered mutinies of epic proportions, Britain would have been FORCED to sign a peace with Russian out of it.

            Only a million doughboys pouring into France save the allied cause, and even that barely in the nick of time. If England had stayed out it would have won at least two years earlier, perhaps sooner.

          • Luca

            The Americans provided the turning point in the long stalemate. America was a powerhouse of wartime production, money, oil, manpower and logistics. We were the number 1 at almost everything during this time period. The handwriting was on the wall and everyone else was weary from four years of trench warfare that amounted to nothing more than a meat grinder.

          • Paul

            I think I pretty much answered this by saying that America would not have lasted long in the trenches vs the Germans in WWI. The US have never produced particularly good soldiers and have won most everything by mass bombing.

          • Luca

            No war has ever been won by mass bombing. The American soldiers bailed out Europe in two world wars so I have no clue what you’re talking about. The American military has rarely even lost a battle.

          • Paul

            You’ll notice I said Soldiers and you changed it to ‘Military’
            As I said without air superiority they have rarely won a battle.

          • Luca

            Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are the military and none of them can go it alone and win a war single-handed, I don’t care what country you are talking about.

            I served in the Marines over 40 years ago and I guarantee you, they are well-trained and very good “soldiers”.

            The Japanese commander on Tarawa bragged that “it would take a million men a hundred years” to take Tarawa. It took 35,000 Marines 3 days.

          • LHathaway

            lol Ok, adolph. . ?

          • Paul

            Read some history before commenting.

        • ShermanTMcCoy

          Of course there was a Holocaust. And no group in history has been able to profit more off their hardships than has the Tribe.

          • Luca

            3. Of course there was a Holocaust and it’s name was WW2. Just ask the Russians who lost 20 million.

            War is hell, people die, but let’s make some movies about it, make some money and make some eternal victims.

          • saxonsun

            Or She.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          1. I’ll not defend the Soviets, but the fire bombings were only different than the Nazi bombings of Britain in the Battle of Britain in scale and intensity. Are you saying that Hitler would have not done the same had he the capacity? The Luftwaffe never possessed the strategic bombing capacity of the combined Anglo-American war machine. Dresden was horrific, but to pretend Hitler didn’t do some pretty horrific stuff is disingenuous. Hiroshima? My father was overjoyed when those two bombs ended the war. Estimates (pre-bombs) predicted that the overall loss of life of a conventional invasion of Japan would have far exceeded the death toll of those two incidents, and it can be argued that Japan might never have recovered economically.

          2. You should really rethink that statement. In no way does it hold up to the facts. Germany came very close to winning with the Brits involved and had the American troops been even a few months late in arriving (their presence as much for morale as military numbers), Germany may well have still been victorious.

          3. Call it what you may, the world population of Jews has still yet to surpass what it was before WW2. That’s an amazing statistic to me but for the fact that Jews are Whites and don’t reproduce like flies.

          4. You have to care what the lemmings think. They will come to Fascism, but not to Naziism, not until it’s too late.

          • Spartacus

            3. That’s because the numbers were already inflated . Just think – Before WWII, Europe had a little over 8 million jews. If 6 million of them had been killed, then how can Israel today have over 6 million ethnic jews (out of a total population of 8 million), Europe have around 2 million, not to mention the several hundred of thousands who emigrated to the US and other parts of the Americas before, during and after WWII ?

            Also, if they were so keen on wiping out the jews, how come there were over 120.000 jews in the Wehrmacht, the SS, Gestapo, and in the NSDAP’s leadership ? How could they be generals, field-marshals, colonels, captains if they were to be exterminated ?

          • NeanderthalDNA

            If I were Hitler I would have armed the Jews with the best equipment the 3rd Reich had and sent them against the Brits in North Africa and Palestine.

            War over…

          • Spartacus

            Not so simple… They needed an alliance with Iran and the arab countries .

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Yeah, certainly hindsight 20/20 and never anything so simple in this complex world.
            But that was an age of powerful NATIONALISM, the Islamic thing not what it has become since. There is still a self identification in old Persia with the Aryan, not to mention the Shia/Sunni split. The Persians never quite got over the humiliation of being overrun by the “lizard eaters” as they had called the Arabs.
            But the Sunni Arab middle east is all ate up with the sub-Saharan genetics and (with 20/20 hindsight) I have no respect for Hitler’s love affair with those sand negroes. I can see the Persians of that era coming to a gentlemanly understanding with the Old High Semites represented by the Jews, Alawites, Druze, and eastern Arab Christians like the Assyrians, especially with the backing of a powerful German-Italian Axis. And the Turks…well, they sure had an axe to grind with the Soviet Russians, about which I have some reservations, but…realpolitik and all…

        • WR_the_realist

          Had the U.S. not entered WW I it is my belief that Germany would not have won, but there would have been a negotiated peace with the major powers winding up with the borders they started with. But then, as Jerrybear said, there would have been no Treaty of Versailles, no collapse of the German economy, no rise of the Nazis, and no World War II. Consequently there would have been no rise of political correctness in the U.S. and Europe, which was in large part a reaction to Naziism.

          Woodrow Wilson gave us the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and World War I. He’s definitely my least favorite president.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I don’t know, the German Spring offensive of 1918 came VERY close to breaking the Western Allies. I think the Americans were precisely what tipped the scales, as much the morale boost as the actual numbers, also what broke the weary Germans.

            I agree though that what would have resulted would have been a negotiated peace more on par with the classical European model than the total war/ all or nothing 20th century form of conflict resolution.

      • dmxinc

        England’s long standing policy of supporting the weaker nations on the continent would not allow them to stay out of the war.

        That English policy has been the undoing of Western Civilization. Study the Crimean War.

        The Brits wouldn’t allow Christian Russia to neutralize Turkey and free much of Eastern Europe. Russia would have “become too powerful.” So, the Brits allied with the French and the Turks to take out Russia. It was the beginning of the disasters for our Civilization which eventually led to the world wars that have apparently weaken us beyond repair.

      • ShermanTMcCoy

        Yes, Woodrow F’ing Wilson, the author of our demise.

        I hope he is roasting in hell.

        • Luca

          Along with LBJ.

    • antiquesunlight

      What Putnam probably meant was that importing Indians and whoever with fifteen Master’s degrees will help us technologically. But they didn’t spell that out in the article because then it would be apparent that 99.9% of immigrants don’t fall into that category.

      • Spartacus

        Probably not the best quote I could’ve used, but the idea is the same – He contradicted his own research almost as soon as he put it out, and replaced it with senile wishfull thinking. Such a man cannot be a true scholar .

        • antiquesunlight

          Well, at least he has the integrity to publish his findings. I’m willing to bet there’s a universe of information out there that just isn’t published because it contradicts the Orthodoxy. But I agree, it’s ridiculous. The real misfortune, is that policy makers will almost certainly respond in a similar way. “Diversity doesn’t work, so let’s encourage more diversity!” My college goes on and on about the miracle of multiculturalism but ignores the obvious fact that it doesn’t work. The problem must be that we just aren’t multicultural enough yet.. So dumb.

          • Frank_DeScushin

            Toward the end of the full original article there’s discussion of how Vancouver officials, upon hearing that diversity causes social trust, have devised ways to bring diverse people together more. The plans include condos with more communal areas, and communal tables at restaurants. You see, the problem why diversity isn’t working yet is because government officials have yet to try to force us to eat together socially. Talk about doubling down after being told the plan is not working.

          • Brian

            The Vancouver officials utterly, completely missed the lesson. I don’t want to have a potluck dinner with the Somalis in my condo. I want the Somalis gone.

  • MekongDelta69

    It’s not JUST DIE-Versity now folks.
    It’s… Hyper-DIE-Versity.

    Sounds like a very ‘promising’ future…

  • Puggg

    In contrast to conservatives’ beliefs, Putnam says multicultural diversity doesn’t necessarily lead to open “conflict” among people of different ethnic groups. “Race riots” and violence do not often break out.

    Maybe there’s a reason for that. Governments that supervise diverse areas are bigger, more involved, more repressive and sometimes more brutal than a government of a cohesive white mono-racial homogeneous area. Riots and violence don’t break out in huge scales because of the iron boot. Or if the boot was not made of iron, there would be lots of race riots and violence.

    • Nancy Thomas

      Exactly. That’s why the marxists don’t care a whit about the lack of social cohesion, because they have found by experience that a police state will make it work!

  • bigone4u

    Ha, ha, ha. If the pro-diversity crowd had their way, we’d have “fusion” and “harmony” by gathering round the campfire and singing Kumbaya. “Meaningful interaction.” Yeah, right.

    • Mentious

      I know, why not have a bit of FUSION between Canada’s Anglos, Irish, Scots, Germans, and French? That would be spectacular excitement!

      Oh yeah, that’s already well underway via intermarriage.

      But not TOO much of it. We should respect the peoples. Let’s leave Canada White please. But it would be pretty cool fusion! Like, when my Lithuanian father married a Norwegian. Incredible!

  • LovelyNordicHeidi

    Even though Putnam realized the results of his own research into diversity challenged his promulticultural values, he still holds hope that immigration may have long-term benefits in North America if handled responsibly by politicians.

    —————————————

    How sad! You constantly see the scary proof that multiculti society isn’t going to work, but you just know that this is the anti-multiculti devil’s way of tempting you, so you just keep on believing in multiculti society and hope that the multiculti heavens will descend upon earth as soon as possible. I can’t wait for that paradise of equality!

    I just have a vague idea that liberal atheism is a code word for multicultural theism.

    • JDInSanD

      And if multiculturism is good for us then why does it need to be “handled responsibly by politicians?” Shouldn’t it just work on its own?

  • Nancy Thomas

    Salter reached the very same conclusions. It’s actually rather obvious stuff, unless you’re a BDL.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    The only way to “fix” the problems caused by diversity is to stop mass 3rd world immigration and repatriate all non-whites. Allowing the mass immigration of non-whites to continue is just adding more and more fuel to the fire.

    • antiquesunlight

      They’ll try to propagandize us into miscegenating first. Then when that doesn’t work out the way they intended… who knows what stupid idea they’ll have then.

      • JDInSanD

        Maybe we’ll end up with an official caste system rather than the unofficial one we already have.

    • Luca

      Not only should we stop it, we should reverse it. Let’s bring back large scale deportation.

  • antiquesunlight

    Good heavens. So Putnam has scientific evidence that diversity and multiculturalism don’t work, and his solution is that we need more of it. How typical.

  • JohnEngelman

    One of the most serious downsides of greater diversity, emphasize Putnam and others, is people become more reluctant to pay taxes.

    Glaeser, Collier and others have discovered higher ethnic diversity leads to more reluctance to redistribute wealth. In high-immigrant societies, Glaeser found the relatively well-off have less empathy for those on lower incomes because they don’t see them as being basically like themselves.

    - Vancouver Sun, February 9, 2014

    Nearly everything else that liberals desire is jeopardized by a high degree of diversity. Even lower income whites who benefit from domestic spending programs favor tax cuts when they feel that the government no longer advances the interests of whites.

  • Look_A_Squirrel

    Scientists always need to spend enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars to discover what anyone with common sense has known since childhood.

  • Frank_DeScushin

    Since these findings contradict Liberal fantasies of multiculturailsm we, of course, can expect these findings to be completely ignored.

  • MBlanc46

    The “diversity is our strength” is just a smokescreen. The people who are behind large-scale integration aren’t interested in diversity or strength. They’re interested in cheap labor. There are certainly delusional liberals who actually believe the propaganda, but they’re not the ones pulling the wires.

    • Luca

      Cheap labor can be found overseas and companies do it every day. Along with that overseas cheap labor, they get tax breaks, no labor laws and no EPA. Don’t kid yourself.

      They want large populations who keep us fighting, fill tax coffers, provide consumers, bolster political clout and continue the Ponzi schemes like Social Security.

      • MBlanc46

        You’re right, they’ve exported millions of our jobs. But a lot of jobs can’t be exported, construction and hospitality, for example. They might someday export all meatpacking, but for now meatpacking is done domestically and it’s largely Mexicans. They don’t have to import Indian doctors and tech workers, but they do anyway. Let the Indians pay to educate them, them we’ll flood the market with them.

  • Ron Cheaters

    I wasted 10 years in Toronto, where my motto was “walk fast and don’t make eye contact”

    I had a lot of friends, but they were never close friends.
    Now I live in rural Nova Scotia and the few friends I have; I couldn’t live without.

  • Winston_Jack

    Notice how on the original articel comments are only allowed if you are logged into Facebook. No doudt to help them censor the comments made.
    The twin paper to The Sun (Vancouver Province) ran a series about “Racism” a few months back and heavily censored any comment which didn’t grovel and own up to “white guilt” and “white privelage”.

  • sbuffalonative

    That’s the colloquial phrase that Putnam, who has been an adviser to
    everyone from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to the U.S. State Department
    and the World Bank, uses to describe the lack of trust he discovered
    among most North Americans in diverse urban settings.

    WHY are Clinton, Blair, SD, and WB concerned about this? What the hell is going on?

  • Truthseeker

    The only kind of diversity I like is that which exists on a worldwide level. I like the fact that this world is full of different, unique types of people. It makes things more interesting. However, I also believe that keeping these groups separate is the only way to preserve those unique features. Separation does not preclude working together or even having friendships with each other, it only means that we recognize that we’re different people who need to live in different environments. The supposed benefits of diversity that Prof. Putnam desperately wants to believe in can be achieved without created mixed societies.

  • Nathanwartooth

    The task force’s proposals include sponsoring neighbourhood potlucks,
    adding more “communal” tables to restaurants and redesigning
    condominiums for enhanced human interaction.

    Yup, this will solve it. These people are insane.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      Why do these idiots think that taking measures to force people of different races to interact more than they already do in diverse neighborhoods is going to make them like each other any better?

      I can only see this backfiring as whites increase their interactions with blacks and realize that the stereotypes reflect reality.

  • Mentious

    “Putnam adds an additional disturbing discovery–that “in-group trust,
    too, is lower in more diverse settings.” In other words, people also
    become more distrustful even of members of their own ethnic group.”

    This is a true and sad phenomenon! I live in Portland, Oregon where the ones in power are hyper-ventilating to try to make Portland Hyper Diverse. You see bus billboards constantly about “what makes Portland special” — and they always show a smiling non-white.

    Odd: It became a magnet for all these people during the years it was 90 percent or more White. But none of the billboards say that what makes Portland special is its whiteness — even Whites’ penchant to Be Good to Everybody and Virtuously Welcome All Alien. Another bus billboard featured a cartoon drawing of a “diverse” group of people of all colors proclaiming “Long live the Oregonians.” (I guess they had heard some pro-White say “Long live the White Europeans” — and this was some copywriter’s response.)

    Affirmative action laws for whites and gays have further destroyed the town’s ethnic character. I saw the last lights of the old Portland when I first arrived, and it was noticeably friendlier when Whites filled the shop jobs and the work crews — but it faded fast. I’ve walked past the same Chinese guy who owns a toenail salon for 5 year trying to make eye contact with or get any word out of him.

    But the weirdest thing about Portland is how unfriendly the Whites are. The “Portland stare” is where you walk by any White person — they can be the lone person on the street during extreme or strange weather like our recent snow storm — and 99 percent stare straight ahead as if you are not there. Male, female, everybody.

    Promotion of radical left-wing politics and the gay agenda have not helped. I think the basic feeling is “Nobody agrees on anything; it’s better not to interact except with somebody I already know.” I’ve never had one person introduce himself to me in Portland in 6 years. Even the practice of making introductions is non-existent. If you get onto speaking terms with anybody and a 3rd happens into your conversation, you almost never hear anybody say “Tom, this is Steve. Steve this is Tom…” Basically under the Insane Diversity Reich — our human culture itself is actually dying.

  • Lee_CPA

    In summary, after half a century of destroying America’s neighborhoods and forcing white residents to flee metropolitan areas for the suburbs to escape the multicultural rot, politically correct pathogen Putnam discovers that people prefer to be around their own kind.
    .
    Imagine that.

  • Katherine McChesney

    Five years ago I met a White Torontoan on the internet; the daughter of a Baptist pastor. She married and divorced two black men from America who were there because they were ‘conscientous objectors’ from the Viet Nam war. She married them to spite her father and spent most of the time complaining about how they were abusive to her.

  • scutum

    “While Putnam believes there may be long-term benefits for some from immigration (including enhanced scientific and intellectual innovation), he’s become convinced the short-term effect on most cities is a drop in “social capital.” The left never gives up and always has an excuse for why their theories don’t work. IE “there will be long tern benefits.” We didn’t spemd enough money on the stimulus, thats why it didn’t work out as planned.” “We need to spend more money on education to get minority test scores up.” We need more diversity and miscegnation to help the races understand each other better.” ” Mass transit will work if just spend the money needed to build a viable mass transit system in our community.” and the list goes on and on. There is always and excuse and it is always because we have spent enough on it, or done enough of it.

  • WR_the_realist

    While Putnam believes there may be long-term benefits for some from
    immigration (including enhanced scientific and intellectual innovation),
    he’s become convinced the short-term effect on most cities is a drop in
    “social capital.”

    Suppose my primary goal as King was to enhance scientific and intellectual innovation. Then I might well encourage the immigration of PhDs of various races, who in practice would be mostly white and Asian. But would I bring in millions of Somalians, Nigerians, Haitians, Mexican Mestizos, and Guatemalans? Of course not. Even those groping for some benefit to diversity have to turn a blind eye to the sort of diversity we’re actually getting.

  • LHathaway

    Plenty of white girls, but especially Asian girls seem eager to “creating more opportunities for meaningful interaction across ethnic lines” in Vancouver

    Does anyone doubt this ‘citizen assembly’ in Grandview-woodland, being touted as a solution to disharmony, will in reality be about promoting people of color at the expense of whites? Every ‘community center’ in the USA is about promoting a pro-black or pro-hispanic ideology and agenda. White neighborhoods somehow don’t need ‘community centers’. If whites did need them, not doubt instead of being ethnocentric, well, they’d still be ethnocentric but it would be all about respecting people of color. . .

    Forget this Harvard study. Please consult Jared Taylor’s speech ‘Banned in Halifax’.

    • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

      Obama was a community activist in Chicago between his graduating from Columbia and going to Harvard Law.

      Which makes me wonder: Why are bell curve communities the only ones with activists? Why aren’t there any community activists in pasty white bread suburbs? Maybe because they’re not needed, because a “community activist” is nothing more than a blame transfer agent.

  • Deon Van Zyl

    Multiculturalism is Marxism feeding on guilt.