"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> writes:

Haines Brown wrote:

"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> writes:
My my own city neighborhood, most of the people love it because it
is so diverse. They find it stimulating and fun. But obviously,
there's also plenty of anecdotal evidence that people sometimes
don't respond well to social diversity.

City neighborhood? How about subdivisions? As far as I know, most
subdivisions are not racially diversified.

My city is divided into "neighborhoods", each of no greater dimension
than about 1.5 miles. Of these, maybe three more ethnically
homogeneous, with perhaps two thirds or three quarters at most of one
group. Most, however, tend to be much more diversified. For example,
to my East is a small downtown population that is about equally
European, African American, and Latino. To my South, the neighborhood
is mostly Latino, but perhaps a fifth or quarter African-American. To
the West, it is mostly European, with about a third African-American;
to my North it is about equally Caribbean (the largest Caribbean
community outside NYC) and African American. These are guesses on my
part.

My point, though, is that while these neighborhoods have (I suppose)
differing degrees of neighborhood pride, there does not seem to be
greater pride in more homogeneous neighborhoods. My own neighborhood,
which is very diversified, clearly values the ethnic diversity as
perhaps its greatest asset.

All this is anecdotal (and involves some guesswork), and so proves
nothing, but it does suggest to me that fear or distaste for ethnic
groups other than one's own may not be natural, but have specific
causes, in which case it is a question worth exploring in terms of
specific situations.

It is also a question very relevant to China, which is a country with
enormous ethnic diversity, but has generally maintained unity because
there is a prevailing culture (Han) that has a ideology that
traditionally has striven to reach an accommodation among its
peoples.

On the other hand. "overseas" Chinese are in a different
situation, although that seems a secondary issue. Today, working-class
ideology should be a unifying factor, but I don't know to what degree,
although perhaps it should be potentially significant for overseas
Chinese. I'm making some guesses here in order to elicit your own
views on the matter.

I suspect the latter has a lot to do with feelings of personal
insecurity. Outsiders seem a threat; they are unsettling. However,
I wouldn't reduce this insecurity to mere economic well being. Many
poor people don't feel insecure. My own city, in which my own
neighborhood is in some fashion the center, is the second poorest
city in the U.S. The folks in my neighborhood are poorer than the
average in the U.S., and while they have many uncertainties in
life, somehow don't feel threatened.

Fear came in many forms and shapes, relevant to this thread is the
fear associated with people and culture and religion that one does
not understand.

I'm not sure about this. On the next street, the prevailing language
is Hausa, which I don't know, and so don't understand, although they
all seem to know some English. A significant number of other people in
my neighborhood, however, don't know English. When we need to
communicate, it is very difficult or impossible. But we have fun
struggling, and part with body language that we enjoyed the effort,
and there is a certain degree of a social bond that arises despite the
lack of communications. There is a lot about the cultures of various
peoples about which I know little, but that should represent an
opportunity to learn and hopefully come to appreciate. The lack of
understanding does not cause any fear at all.

Religion is an example. Contrary to most people, I happen to be an
atheist, and so by definition can't really understand religious
behavior. Yet I find it fascinating and try to learn what I can about
it, for it is a window into their inner being.

To respond more directly to your question, I suspect one would have
to be able to assess the extent to which the various world's
peoples come to feel insecure, not simply in terms of external
circumstances, but feel threatened because they have no sense of
social location.

Agree if by have no sense social location you a country and its
people are having doubt on the ranking among all other countrys and
the direction of change. It is obvious to me and many other Chinese
that America and Japan are pushing "China threat" because their fear
over their own rankings.

Not sure I follow you. Is it that without a sense of social location
(alien immigrant workers, overseas Chinese, people torn from rural
village settings to find work in the city, Lumpen Proletariat,
suburbanites (;-), etc.?), the person becomes self-contained and
living in an alien world? Yes, in that case I'd agree and suspect that
as a result they are more prone to social pathologies such as racism,
xenophobia, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism.

On the other hand, from this side of the pond, the "China threat" is
probably almost entirely an ideology of a small right fringe group,
and only implicitly that of the state. I can't assess the situation in
Japan. The U.S. state probably has good reason to worry about China,
but that's a concern of only the state imperial interests, and I'm
sure does not apply to most U.S. citizens. If it were not for this
newsgroup, I wouldn't even be aware of it. Everyone I know thinks
highly of China and rather admires ethnic Chinese residents here.

The western hubris you mention is undoubtedly a fact, but we need
to distinguish the hubris of states and the hubris of peoples. I
suspect we could find examples of advantaged western states that
seem to be able to embrace the world, but others see the world in
antagonistic or competitive terms. The same for people, but there
is often no correlation between state policy and popular
attitudes. I don't believe we can make broad generalizations that
we assume will continue to be valid in future years.

Most people in the west know the world through the press. They
believe the so called "free press." Free press is not
helping. Journalists' hubris is the problem.

Yes, but I'd say that the last issue is journalist professional
hubris. But I agree, the press is not at all "free", and I'm not sure
there can be such a thing. Just why the press here blocks most news
and feels it has to disseminate the views of the state is a
complicated issue, but the phenomenon seems clear enough.

As for the press, perhaps it is already loosing some of its grip on
popular consciousness.

I am not sure it is the case. If you mean not all people believe
any press, that is certainly true. On the other hand, given the
diversity of press, everyone can find the press and the view point
that he can identify with. This is not good in many ways. What next?
Foreign cultures and religions are treated as the ultimate boogey
men.

My statement was rather bold, I admit. Part of it, as you say, is that
trust in the press is declining. Also, fewer people seem to read it,
but I've got no evidence to support this view.

I don't see any "diversity" at all in the press here, and to a large
extent there is no choice in which paper we might read. Most regional
press are part of large national corporations that have tentacles in
all kinds of media.

For the most part they rely on a handful of news
service agencies and do not have their own means to acquire
news. Whatever part of the country I'm in, I see very little
differentiation. To get a better paper than the only one available
locally, I'd have to subscribe to it, which most people naturally
don't want to do. Many people here don't know the U.S. is situated on
the globe, and except for U.S. wars (such as Iraq), they don't find
out much about the world, and the ignorance shows.

--

Haines Brown
KB1GRM
ET1(SS) U.S.S. Irex 482