To not want to be the minority where I live?

[Charlottehines]

It really saddens me that in parks and soft plays with my children, that I am in the minority and my children can't play with other children there as they all play together and obviously can't speak English.
I'm in no way racist, my husband is of mixed origin but I do find it incredibly sad that my children are growing up the minority especially when these other groups make no effort to integrate with other mums or the children.
Am I completely unreasonable to feel sad about this?

No, he didn't delay for that reason. Again as court papers have testified. He is not biased - he bases his conclusions on the evidence he finds.

If he is 'biased' why is it ok to say I am going to quote and use the data he provides which suits my personal opinion (that diversity is bad) but ignore as wrong/biased the stuff I don't like (the same continuing research study which showed the benefits).

He has received the world's highest accolade for a political scientist, worked for governments of various political hues across Europe and north America (last 3 US presidents, last 3 British PMs, last 3 French leaders for example). He is currently a Distinguished Visiting Professor in Denmark. He has been called the 'greatest humanities scientist in the world' and, by the Sunday Times as 'the most influential academic in the world today.'

If he himself says he believes, based on the evidence of his research, that diversity, immigration and multi-culturalism are, in the long term, benefitcial, I am leaning towards thinking he has the research to prove it. I do not give a lot of credence to a selective piece of work on Wikipedia, which is cited as needing improvement, and which is clearly aimed at supporting a particular point of view rather than actually reporting what his research found.

Actually, the wiki link doesnt imply any such thing. At simply states what the DATA shows, and the fact that he delayed publication of his paper, the latter of which strongly hints at what he actual opinions are, namely that he is a diversity enthusiast.

It is not misrepresenting his findings to simply state what the findings are. The article makes no claims for Putnam's personal views, just the data he collected.

And as I have said, the data is what matters. Now if there is any data to support Putnam's rather more optimistic views, I am all ears. But I am not going to give much weight to unsupported opinions.

Putnam is biased, as are all people. He is a liberal, and is ideologically disposed to being pro diversity. I dont claim that his bias has led him to intellectual dishonesty, but I do claim it led him to delaying the publication, because he said as much himself:

"In 2006, Putnam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying he had delayed publishing the article until he could "develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity" (quote from John Lloyd of Financial Times)."

If delaying a publication until you can compensate for the findings of your own research is not bias, I am not sure what is. Do you honestly believe that if his research had indicated that diversity was fantastic for social cohesion, he would have spent 6 years trying to compensate for these findings?

And again, if there is data to indicate that diversity is beneficial in the long run, I am all ears, but I have to be honest, I have never seen any evidence that indicates that in either the long or short run, diverse communities are more socially cohesive than homogeneous ones. Nor can I think of any logical reason why this should be so.

BIWI, you make the stupid smear that I was sent by the BNP, contribute nothing worthwhile to the discussion, and wonder why I dont reply? I mean, its not possible that I could just be a newly registered user who signed up to talk about certain subjects like everyone else, no, as my opinions dont accord with your own, I must have some sinister ulterior motive.

Anyway, I wasnt "sent" by anyone. Beyond that, who I am and where I live is none of your damn business.

It misrepresents his findings by omission.

The data is what mattered.

The data supported his findings that in the short term diversity can cause problems.

The data in the same study supported his findings that there are long term benefits to diversity.

It is not 'unsupported opinion'.

It is the findings in the same report.

The original misrepresentation of his data was made by Abigail and Stephen Thernstrom. Abigail Thernstrom worked at the time for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative, right wing, partisan 'think tank' which had a lot of influence under Bush II and has been described as one of the most influential 'neo-conservative' organisations. Thernstrom deliberately and selectively misued Putnam's research.

Much in the same way as Leftwinge is really.

You can't pick and choose the bits that suit you. Quote it all or get back in your hole.

No, if you read the financial times article he is not quoted as saying that.

The article says that.

That is not the same thing as Putnam saying that.

Fromt the FT: "Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that”."
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html#axzz2ynJfY8BM

There is no direct quote from Putnam saying he delayed to 'compensate' for anything. He says he considers it responsible to collect more - long term -data on the issue before publication. Since all the data is freely available he can hardly be accused of twisting, manipulating or hiding information. He didn't publish because he wanted to study the communities further to see if the short term problems continued.

Actually, I contributed to the thread earlier, before you arrived.

And I asked the question because I thought it was very interesting how you just happened to arrive when this thread had started.

No need for you to be so rude, either - I wasn't rude to you. Oh, unless you find the link with UKIP and BNP rude.

So why have you joined MN? Do you have any parenting issues you would like help with?

What data supported the finding that it is beneficial in the long term? Genuinely, I would be interested to see this? What data and what benefits? But all I have seen so far is his opinion, which is at odds with the data that indicates that diversity is problematic.

Also, what kind of time frame is meant by longterm and short term? Is long term within our lifetimes? Will the short term problems exist for most or all of my life?

That would be the link where Putnam says diversity is good in the long term. Leftwing

BIWI, yes your post was rude. Interrogating someone you have never spoken too before and speculating about that they were sent by the BNP (who I assume you dont hold in high regard) is rude.

How many other new users do you accuse of being sent by someone?

Imagine if the first thing I said to you was: "Where did you come from? Were you sent by the Stalin admiration society". I doubt if you would regard that is being polite.

Sorry folks, but this is laughable. Leftwing has been arrived from nowhere. Brought up the same studies yesterday, to no avail. It was pointed out that the whole study states that diversity is beneficial.
To be honest, I think we'd all be better off on a recipe swap.
Any ideas?

Dawn, Putnam SAYING diversity is a good thing is not evidence. Declarations are not evidence.

For example, if I declare:

"The earth is flat!"

That statement doesnt magically become true.

Bravo, adoptmama. Your posts on this thread have been outstanding.

I wonder what some people on this thread would make of my family. We have representatives of different races, religions, and ethnic groups. Some of my family members are even recent immigrants! (Including my husband.) We speak a number of different languages in the family. Not everyone speaks all the languages and yet we somehow manage to communicate. I never really thought it was all that remarkable but evidently my family makeup would blow some people's minds.

From the same study
New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. (Putnam 2007)

In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration. (Putnam 2007)

Surely it is intellectually dishonest to repeatedly quote, stand by or afirm the data of short term impacts of diversity (because they suit your personal or politcal viewpoint) but dismiss as unimportant, biased or mere opinion the final conclusions based on the long term data as they contradict your personal opinion.

Have skimmed all since my last post. Wow, just wow and I can be outspoken and up front.

"where angels fear to tread and devils deign to dance". (Windy, Mnet, 2014)

Oh apparently I have arrived from no where. Whereas as all other users naturally evolved on the forums over time, I just magically manifested myself like an apparition of evil bigotry.

To claim that I just decided to register like anyone else, well that's laughable.

Dawn, I had a lovely corned beef stew with pie crust for tea. And I have a rather good recipe for pot roasted beef.

You have arrived from nowhere. You just turned up on this thread. I am wondering why, and have asked you why.

It's obvious why I suggested UKIP or BNP, although I note, with interest, that you ignored UKIP and referred only to BNP.

Left, you have only joined to spread misinformation and to misrepresent someone else's studies to meet your own ends.

You have joined with an agenda.

This is a parenting forum. Although we discuss many, many other issues besides parenting.

Most people don't turn up on a parenting forum to argue politics, you see, which is what piqued my interest.

This thread is getting more and more strange. People are going around in circles so fast they are going to disappear up their own arse before long.

OP seems to have vanished as well..... Hmmm

Adoptmama, again, where is the EVIDENCE?

The link I provided specifically stated and described the source of the data which indicated diversity is a problem. So what data is Putnam referring to when he talks about successful migrant communities creating new cross cutting identities?

Because that to me sounds distinctly like assimilation, not diversity. Nor does it indicate that the assimilated groups increase social cohesion beyond what it was prior to their arrival. So how does this indicate diversity is desirable? Surely if the solution of diversity is assimilation ie. the erasure of diversity, then diversity is not desirable?

If diversity is desirable, then it would have to be the case that a society with a diversity is BETTER off specifically because it was diverse, than a more homogeneous society.

Its also worth mentioning that the assimilation he is referring to has only actually worked with European migrants into the founding European populations. That is hardly compelling evidence that South Asian and African migrants can be assimilated in the UK, let alone evidence that we will be better off socially prior to mass immigration.

Dawn, Putnam SAYING diversity is a good thing is not evidence. Declarations are not evidence.
Dd has made a lovely melt in the middle chocolate pudding. Mmm!

No BIWI, I specifically said I wasnt sent by anyone. I personally have no real problem with UKIP, which is why I didnt object to that specifically, but I dont support any political party. I am not representing any group.