(Personally, I like diversity, so this is no attack on the phenomenon from me, ok ? Don't shoot the messenger.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------

"A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?"

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/04/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=1

page 2 of the article: "It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," he writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

and then on page 5: In his paper, Putnam cites the work done by Page and others, and uses it to help frame his conclusion that increasing diversity in America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching. As for smoothing over the divisions that hinder civic engagement, Putnam argues that Americans can help that process along through targeted efforts. He suggests expanding support for English-language instruction and investing in community centers and other places that allow for "meaningful interaction across ethnic lines."

One of the ways to defined a country is through language. Language is the unifying force between people of a country. If people are continually allowed to not learn English (or that country's main language) to succeed, it can only hamper society, and as a result civic duty, IMO. I have a few more thoughts but it's late so I'll hold them for a bit.

Jordan .

As an anglophone with lousy French language skills, living in Quebec (which, generally speaking, likes to think of itself as a nation), this notion is on my mind a lot.

On one hand, Quebec is part of Canada, and in Canada English and French are both official languages. It upsets me when I occasionally have to deal with the Professionally French -- the people who think I should be taking my thieving colonialist ass "back to Canada" and have managed to form government-funded organizations to promote the notion. As far as immigrants from elsewhere, Quebec is currently having a travelling public forum so that people can discuss the phenomena of cultural tolerance and accommodation of imported traditions and beliefs, and how they affect the fabric of civic life here. The main revelation so far, and it's not exactly shocking, is that rural Quebecers don't like Anglos or dark people very much and would like them to go away.

On the other hand, if I was French, I wouldn't be able to function in Calgary or Vancouver or Toronto very well, while an English speaker can live in Montreal for decades and seldom encounter any serious impediments in day-to-day life. There's a double standard, to be sure, but it's kind of an inevitable slice of reality, given that North America is so predominantly English. I understand, and even sympathize a little, with the desire to protect Quebec culture from becoming further diminished.

Ironically, distrust of immigrants is one thing that brings the rural Quebecer and the Albertan farmer together....

It's a really, really hard issue to adequately address, and after years of thinking about I'm not sure I'm any closer to a conclusion, or even a satisfactory compromise.

(And Raymond, that was a really interesting read.  It seems to me like the essential idea is that modern urban life dilutes and spreads around this social capital, and in doing so produces the kind of thin civic trust that makes cities attractive for non-majority populations to come to -- everyone can stand living together, as long as they don't have to do it too closely...)

Hi Jamie,

I liked your perspective of the subject in Canada.

I think intermarriage will grow with exposure over time and that could be a good thing. Love is an international language. And I think the cultures, as in Quebec, will continue to exist at the same time.

There's a great deal to be gained from diversity and the blending of cultures.  However I think language is something that is distinct in itself.  It can serve as the bridge between people, or an impenetrable wall.  Failure to adopt the local language is what leads to the formation of immigrant ghettos, where in houses, shops and schools a language other than the local dialect is used.

Where you have a successful, harmonious and peaceful nation like Australia, I also place a high value on integration.  Integration can only be achieved when immigrants have reasonable English skills.  I think Australia does diversity well - we are welcoming and tolerant people, but we do expect people to integrate.  After all, why did they come here if only to perpetuate what they already had overseas?

I contrast this to some other nations who are infamously over-tolerant and end up permanently destroying their own culture in the name of appeasing the PC lefties in their communities.  Ultimately everyone loses in this scenario as the common culture is disrespected, devalued and lost...to be replaced with a mish-mash of the best and worst of many nations.

At uni, as a white male, I was in the minority...such is the diversity here.  And it was a beautiful thing.  Many overseas students stayed and joined our society...while others went back to their countries with a new, more relaxed and tolerant attitude...to tell friends and family about Australia.  The intermarriage concept is key, as several guys I know (including myself) from uni married girls of other cultures.  This has resulted in a blend of cultures between our families, and as a side benefit has produced some damn cute kids (even if I do say so myself). 

So Cybaca, an example of successful intermarriage, and I'll bet your wife speaks English. I agree a common language is important glue in the equation, for societal and individual betterment. No question. 

Our different backgrounds can still be enjoyed: St Valentine's Day for the Irish, some Yiddish and Italian terms fused into the language, and hey, I'm ready for a Cinco de Mayo party.

Yeah... the stuff they taught us in grade school about the melting pot is a lie.  People either assimilate, or segregate.  Schools encourage assimilation more than anything else, particularly with linguistics.  People fear difference. The research doesn't surprise me. 

So diversity isn't the graet big Disney movie hug we hoped it would be.  I applaud Putnam's honesty and the possibilities that will hopefully open up by looking at diversity as a challenge, not an obstacle. 

I think it's wise to remember that this is the same institution responsible for "The National Lampoon"

That said, its kind of funny to see the underground bigotry responsible for such findings, where the only places people of different ethnic back grounds willingly mix is under the circumstances of misfortune, and low income, where they haven't much in the way of choice. 

 Diversity appears to fail, because a great number of successful people choose to use their greater means to avoid diversity.