[rayiner]

What do you mean by “diversity?” If you’re talking about superficial differences, then you’re correct. China is an example of a country that has different ethnic groups, but where they’ve managed to erase most sense of distinct ethnic identity and created cultural homogeneity. So you can have an orderly society with ethnic diversity.

But the US has cultural diversity—which is different than race. Diversity that actually makes people different—culture, religion, etc.—is a source of conflict everywhere. It’s not about race. On the subcontinent, we’re all “brown.” But we made different countries for the brown Hindus versus the brown Muslims, and then we split the brown Muslims into Urdu speakers and Bangla speakers. And it’s just easier that way.

In America, even the folks we consider “white” are actually different, culturally distinct subgroups. Appalachians are different from New England WASPs who are different from Italians, and the strife and disharmony between is the reason for a lot of America’s problems. And if Massachusetts was a country by itself and didn’t have to care about what West Virginia was doing, everyone would be happier.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Name me a socially harmonious country (like say Denmark or Japan) that’s also culturally diverse. The only one I can think of is Singapore, and that’s a very unique situation where you’ve basically got a strongman keeping everyone in line and working together.

[skissane]

> In America, even the folks we consider “white” are actually different, culturally distinct subgroups.

But that's true of other countries too. In Glasgow, they still have problems with ethnic/religious conflict (sectarianism) between Protestant Scots and the immigrant Irish Catholic minority (many of whose ancestors immigrated in the 19th century), particularly associated with the rivalry between the Rangers and Celtics football teams–yet both sides are generally perceived as "white". In Australia, most of the Germans went to Adelaide, which is why it is still the national headquarters of the Lutheran Church. The majority of Scottish immigration to New Zealand went to the southern part of the South Island (especially Dunedin and the surrounding Otago region). Over 25% of people in Saskatchewan have German ancestry, compared to less than 2% in Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador; nobody would be surprised to learn that over 30% of Nova Scotians have Scottish ancestry (it is in the name), but in fact the percentage in Prince Edward Island is even higher. (All these Canadian figures are from 2016, don't have figures from the 2021 Canadian census handy.) In Argentina, most of the Welsh immigrants went to Patagonia, and there are still a few thousand Welsh speakers there today.

This just seems to be another one of these "America is different because it has X" explanations which completely ignores the fact that comparable countries have X too.

[rayiner]

Sectarian conflict exists everywhere. But in America it’s all-encompassing, because there is no dominant group. Australia is still majority English. Scotland is majority Scot, etc. America has no majority group. Only 4% of Australians have German ancestry. In America, by contrast, Germans are 17%.

I don’t think there’s any election in Australian history where people from a foreign ancestry ended up tipping the balance and caused major change. That’s happened repeatedly in America. FDR never would’ve gotten elected without Irish and Italian immigrants. That would be an explosive event in most other countries.

[skissane]

> Australia is still majority English

In the 2021 census, only 33% of Australians reported English ancestry. Of course, there are probably many Australians with English ancestry who didn't report it on the census – I know, I am one of them. But, my Irish ancestors outnumber my English ones, and I feel a certain emotional connection with Ireland which I lack with England. There's a cemetery in County Kerry where many of my Irish ancestors are buried–I've never actually been to it (one of these days), but my parents have–whereas, I know almost nothing about my English ancestors except for the fact of their existence (on my paternal grandmother's side)

The quasi-official term for Australia's historical ethnic majority is "Anglo-Celtic Australian", which incorporates all the ancestries of Britain and Ireland (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc). Referring to that majority as "English" can be seen as excluding the Irish/Scottish/Welsh. On the other hand, the term has been criticised as minimising the role that British-vs-Irish/Protestant-vs-Catholic conflict has played in Australia's social and political history

> I don’t think there’s any election in Australian history where people from a foreign ancestry ended up tipping the balance and caused major change.

Irish Australians played a major role in defeating the 1916 and 1917 conscription referendums; if only English Australians had been able to vote, the referendums would have likely passed. The Ireland-born Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Daniel Mannix, played a big role in the defeat of both referendums, publicly arguing that Germany's crimes against Belgium were nothing compared to Britain's crimes crimes against Ireland. The defeat of the referendums had major political consequences – the governing Labor Party split into pro-conscription and anti-conscription factions, with the former ending up merging with the conservatives, while the rump anti-conscription Labor Party ended up locked out of government for the following decade.

> FDR never would’ve gotten elected without Irish and Italian immigrants. That would be an explosive event in most other countries.

Australia's Labor Party split again in 1954, this time over communism. The activist B. A. Santamaria (leader of the "Catholic Social Studies Movement", both his parents were Italian immigrants) claimed that Soviet agents had infiltrated Labor, and demanded they be expelled; the party rejected his allegation, and expelled his followers instead. Santamaria founded his own anti-communist "Democratic Labor Party" (DLP). Mannix, still Archbishop of Melbourne (he died in office in 1963, at the age of 99) played a pivotal role in encouraging Catholics (still majority Irish) in the state of Victoria to vote for the DLP, whose members once elected supported the conservative federal government, and helped keep it in power for the next 15+ years. Conversely, Normal Cardinal Gilroy, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney (first ever Australian-born, but both his parents were born in Ireland), opposed Santamaria's movement, and hence the DLP was unsuccessful in New South Wales.

Once again, arguments for American exceptionalism rely on ignorance of comparable events in other countries

[AndrewKemendo]

Very well put and thanks for putting the effort in to write all this out

The ignorance is pervasive

[AndrewKemendo]

Again, your argument boils down into “everyone’s xenophobic so we might as well all get used to it.”

It assumes that there’s something inherently and inextricably culturally prejudiced and that’s just flat wrong and has been proven over and over.

Even if it weren’t wrong, it’s not any kind of world to live in and everyone should be doing all they can to try to fix it.

You should compare your arguments with Richard Lynn and see how close they are. Perhaps that will give you pause:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

[rayiner]

How is it “xenophobic” to point out that foreign countries (Japan, Denmark) have better results in some respects?

Human beings are social animals. Organizing a society is easier when people have shared identities, know the same rules, have the same values, and believe in the same things. Not because of “prejudice” but because of the efficiency and value of being on the same page about stuff. And everyone on this site knows that—there’s a reason Silicon Valley companies spend so much effort cultivating a particular culture. It matters for working together to achieve shared goals. Countries are no different.

To offer an anecdotal example: my extended family is a mix of monocultures: I’m Bangladeshi, my wife’s Oregonian, and my sister in law is Taiwanese. And, even in the complete absence of prejudice, the social cohesion between these cultures is low. We spend a lot of time working through differences in expectations and values, and it’s easiest to just keep everyone at arm’s length a bit. It’s utterly different from the tightly integrated and cohesive extended family networks in my Bangladeshi side of the family. If you put us all together in a “Survivor” situation where we all had to work together and cooperate, it would not go well.

That’s basically a microcosm of America. We’ve developed this individualist, arm’s-length culture as a result of our immense cultural diversity. And one of the outcomes of that is we drive around in these big steel boxes and don’t care when we run each other over.

You’re basically saying that people should value cultural diversity as an end in itself, and pursue it makes it difficult or impossible to do things that require large-scale social organization. But why should we value what you value?