On 9/13/07, Venky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=090507A
>
> Diversity's Dark Side
> By John Luik : 11 Sep 2007
<snip>
> But now a considerable amount of solid evidence about
> multiculturalism is in, and it suggests that far from something
> positive, it is a corroding and corrupting influence on just
> about everything that it comes in contact with, from social
> capital, trust, and community spirit to altruism, volunteering,
> friendship and even happiness.
I have several problems with the conclusions that Putnam comes to.
1. As Jim has pointed out, Putnam does not seem to recognize the
diversity of countries like India, China and South Africa. Those are
hardly homogeneous countries. Putnam also does not seem to consider
largely homogeneous countries like Japan the effect that this
homogeneity is having on its culture / economy / society.
2. There seems to be an unstated difference in this research between
homogeneity today and homogeneity in the past. Since 1492 homogeneity
has been a constant aspect of the non-native American US. The economic
successes of the US in late 1800's and most of the 1900's were at
least partially due to the US's multicultural population. I simply
cannot understand how this is ignored.
3. Heterogeneous countries have a much better success in importing
labor to keep its economic cylinders firing and society ticking.
Countries like Japan, OTOH because of its desire to maintain
homogeneity, has been reduced to investing heavily on robots to take
care of the old people. I direct your attention to labor movement into
the US and the UK. Why, even Nepali labor coming into India greases
the gears of the Indian economic engine.
Thaths
--
Homer: He has all the money in the world, but there's one thing he can't buy.
Marge: What's that?
Homer: (pause) A dinosaur.
-- Homer J. Simpson
Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
