Does Asia need more diversity?

[Cipherous]

I've been thinking alot about the future of Asia and I was thinking how Asian society would be shaped.

Comparatively speaking, Asian countries are more conservative more so than their western counterparts. which begs the question: Do Asian societies lack diversity? are alot of Asian countries just monolithic societies (with the exception of a few) ? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everybody should start disobeying their parents or start rebelling against the police. But what I am trying to imply if Asian societies are conducive to "thinking outside of the box" (developing new ideologies and new ways of thinking)?

So do Asian countries lack diversity? When I mean diversity; I am including different racial catergories, ethnicities, ideas, religions, market, etc. I mean as Asian American, I can see some wrongs of Asian culture and some wrongs of American culture and I can pick and choose the pro's of each respective culture. Also, thanks to exposure to other cultures and other people, I have come to the conclusion that my thinking may not be the best. I've learned that there are better ways to think...better ways to understand the world better. That everybody has a bias and everybody has their perspective. Had I not be exposed to the cultures and people, maybe I wouldn't understand the world as well as I think I understand it today.

In japan, to become a Japanese citizen...you have to change your name to Japanese and just confirm with the majority. There is no dissidence, there is no diversity. Korea's population is like 98% Korean and the rest is probably Northern Chinese and other.

Could this be the reason some of the great Asian civilizations came to a halt? Because everybody was forged into one big monolith? did everybody thought that their current life was at a point where it was sublime; where there was no room for improvement? The Europeans got the upperhand by exploring the world and venturing out to new terrorities and new ideas. When they came to China, they found gun powder which eventually led them to create the gun...which gave them the military force which ultimately lead them to conquer the world.

We can see the effects of countries run by dictators (one single view point) and countries run by more diverse states (democracy, socialist, etc). Countries run by dictators are usually very homogeneous (in terms of exposure to other things outside of their mindset) and lack alot of freedom. Whereas today's democracies (although not entirely perfect) are almost the opposite.

I have confidence in my fellow man that we're capable of improving society and progress much further than we think. However, I do think new ideologies and new ideas are our salvation.

[Blue dice]

I've been thinking alot about the future of Asia and I was thinking how Asian society would be shaped.

Comparatively speaking, Asian countries are more conservative more so than their western counterparts. which begs the question: Do Asian societies lack diversity? are alot of Asian countries just monolithic societies (with the exception of a few) ? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everybody should start disobeying their parents or start rebelling against the police. But what I am trying to imply if Asian societies are conducive to "thinking outside of the box" (developing new ideologies and new ways of thinking)?


Diversity in thinking is always a great boon for a civilization. China dropped the ball in that area back when it had the upper hand. Instead of maintaining momentum they said "oh we're as good as we're going to be so let's seal off our borders and just be content." Not much thought was given into how fast the outside world could develop thus the western world got the upper hand. Remember the west at the time consisted of highly factionalized nations. When countries are at perpetual war against each for centuries and always have to watch their backs they will always strive to develop the latest and greatest in tech to stay ahead of the competition. Whereas in asia empires spanned thousands of miles and became "monolithic" as you stated before. In asian nations there is still more value in keeping with the status quo which can be negative to social development.

I think most Chinese understand that now and that apathy doesn't exist for the majority of the population. Most are willing to soak up outside ideas (thus the whole stereotype about imitating) basically catching up on decades of being backward under communist rule. Japan understood the need to embrace foreign concepts early on in order to carve a niche in this world.

As far as population diversity goes..believe it or not I don't think it's such a big deal. Media is such that even the most remote people have some exposure to the outside world. Besides, most of Asia's homogenous population is due to lack of foreign immigrants not so much prohibiting new immigrants except for a few countries like Japan.

[Cipherous]

As far as population diversity goes..believe it or not I don't think it's such a big deal. Media is such that even the most remote people have some exposure to the outside world. Besides, most of Asia's homogenous population is due to lack of foreign immigrants not so much prohibiting new immigrants except for a few countries like Japan.

I don't think we can really count on the media for the apporiate exposure. I mean look at how some American media depicts Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. You always notice a subtle bias regardless of who controls the media (huge bias and even lies for some media ie Saddam, North Korea, Burma, etc).

Granted everybody who is in a diverse population is educated enough and brings a fresh perspective (but humans aren't perfect but you always learn something regardless of social status), I think diversity brings alot to a community.

[Blue dice]

I don't think we can really count on the media for the apporiate exposure. I mean look at how some American media depicts Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities.You always notice a subtle bias regardless of who controls the media (huge bias and even lies for some media ie Saddam, North Korea, Burma, etc).

Fair enough.. but i'm just saying that even remote populations have exposure whether it be good or bad.

Granted everybody who is in a diverse population is educated enough and brings a fresh perspective (but humans aren't perfect but you always learn something regardless of social status), I think diversity brings alot to a community.
It depends on if it's controlled diversity or not. Even in America the "diversity" is controlled by immigration limits and the overwhelming culture is about conformity into this ethno American ideal. Subconsciously, the media depicts white as the "real" America and everything else after that in descending order, it's not true diversity. If you want a truly diverse population go look at Brazil. Even though they also have some issues with racism it's hardly on the scale of America.

I'd even go as far as to say that Canada understands diversity better than America.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

In japan, to become a Japanese citizen...you have to change your name to Japanese and just confirm with the majority.
Not really. Recently some Vietnamese sued the government and won the right to naturalize under katakana-ization of their Vietnamese names. Naturalized Chinese often keep their surnames. And some foreigners like Dave Aldwinkle choose truly outlandish kanji names like "Arudo Debito." It's only the Korean special permanent residents who feel like they have to take a passname.

We can see the effects of countries run by dictators (one single view point) and countries run by more diverse states (democracy, socialist, etc). Countries run by dictators are usually very homogeneous (in terms of exposure to other things outside of their mindset) and lack alot of freedom. Whereas today's democracies (although not entirely perfect) are almost the opposite.
Not really. Homogeneous countries tend towards socialism, at least economically, while generally promoting liberty and democracy. Look at Scandinavian tax and pension systems. I guess this is because, the two strongest strains of sentiment against welfare policies and the like are not only libertarians and those who advocate smaller government, but another group, those who dislike seeing the benefits of higher government spending accrue to other ethnic or religious groups. In homogeneous countries, this second group of people has no objection, which cuts out a lot of the pressure against welfare systems and the like. But, even if there were a great deal of income inequality, people wouldn't complain that much, because in a homogeneous country, obviously income inequality wouldn't have anything to do with race or religion.

In contrast, diverse countries tend towards dictatorship, eliminating free speech and sometimes restraining capitalism as well, especially in the face of income inequalities. This is because, keeping everyone at roughly equal levels of income is necessary to prevent communal violence between races or religions, and hold the country together. But for the reasons above, it's hard under a democratic system to keep support for the forced redistributive policies (such as affirmative action) necessary to promote income equality among disparate groups. So the government responds by declaring the discussion of certain topics as outside the bounds of democratic discourse, eliminating democracy and policing the society heavily so that the ruling class can implement whatever policies it wants without worrying about riots, or possibly eliminating capitalism so that everyone stays equally poor (except for the ruling class).

As Amy Chua documented in her book "World on Fire," the combination of democracy, capitalism, and a diverse society is very unstable --- often one of the three elements will be destroyed. Singapore and some Balkan states clamped down primarily on democracy and liberty, while maintaining an open economic system. Malaysia clamped down mainly on capitalism, but partly on democracy as well. The Soviet Union clamped down both on capitalism and on democracy. And Nazi Germany and Indonesia tried to eliminate their minority groups.

[SunWuKong]

I'd even go as far as to say that Canada understands diversity better than America.


maybe in Toronto and Vancouver, and of course, Montreal, but travel outside these areas, and "diversity" just means "assimilation".

[SunWuKong]

Granted everybody who is in a diverse population is educated enough and brings a fresh perspective (but humans aren't perfect but you always learn something regardless of social status), I think diversity brings alot to a community.


only if there is a high enough level of tolerance. otherwise, "diversity" just leads to race riots.

[nonamerasian]

. . .If you want a truly diverse population go look at Brazil. Even though they also have some issues with racism it's hardly on the scale of America. . .

Sure about that?

[AngryABCGirl]

Sure about that?

I don't think that's a fair comparsion, America looks at race in an disembodied yet outrageous way no other nation does. Also Brazil and the US stand on very different balances of economy, culture, and living standards.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

only if there is a high enough level of tolerance. otherwise, "diversity" just leads to race riots.
Well, a good internal standing army can prevent race riots and other such giant conflagrations. The bigger problem is the low-level violence, such as being beaten to death with your own tire iron when your car breaks down in the wrong neighborhood.

[ChairmanMah]

I'd even go as far as to say that Canada understands diversity better than America.


without a doubt. I think all you whiny asians should jsut move to vancouver or toronto where basically half the adult population are immigrants. Mostly chinese.

[Cipherous]

This is because, keeping everyone at roughly equal levels of income is necessary to prevent communal violence between races or religions, and hold the country together

There is communal violence between different races and religions because there is ignorance. Its "Us" against "Them", they're not with us...so they're against us. You ever wonder who developes this "us" and "them"? And who the masses are "holding" the country togather for? For themselves? Or the ruling class?

Lets say a dictator ruled the earth. What if we knew some Martians were visiting earth and the only person who knows anything about them is the dictator. Could the Martians be evil? Maybe. But could they be friends as well? What if they held alien ideologies or had knowledge of a world we don't know of yet. What if these ideologies actually helped us and liberated us from the dictator. you think the dictator would want you to see what the Martians have to offer? you think he would let the Martians associate with his earth so that that the Dictator would have a bunch of dissidents amongst his people. So its in the best interest of the dictator to label the Martians as "evil" and "bad" because they pose a threat to his power. Thus, his people would fear the martians as much the dictator fears losing his power.

People can easily be scared due to lack of understand and ignorance and the elite take advantage of that to quell change and dissidence.

But for the reasons above, it's hard under a democratic system to keep support for the forced redistributive policies (such as affirmative action) necessary to promote income equality among disparate groups. So the government responds by declaring the discussion of certain topics as outside the bounds of democratic discourse, eliminating democracy and policing the society heavily so that the ruling class can implement whatever policies it wants without worrying about riots, or possibly eliminating capitalism so that everyone stays equally poor (except for the ruling class).


so to avoid conflict, dictators or an elite group should rule over the majority? Instead of understanding and solving the reasons of conflict, we just crush it and leave it to the ruling class to solve everything?

Believe or not, alot of democracies aren't true democracies. Even in America, the rich run everything. While it is a "free society"...America is a capitalistic society as well (where more Americans tend to be economists rather than socialists); the vast majority of the population really have no say in what goes on. We're said to be represented by who we elect but thats not the case. The only people who vote in this country are the rich (almost 70% of Americans don't vote). While America is not like oppressive to the extent of such countries such as burma, China, and what not...many Americans are oppressed due to their social status.

You ever wonder why there are riots? You think people just riot like its a parade? People riot because they want change. Yes, cities are gonna get burned and some people may die but its the system and current state of their countries that caused them to riot. If the ruling class actually gave the people the education, resources and equality, then there wouldn't be any need for riots. Granted they have enough education to comprehend enough of the world so that they can understand the reasoning behind events and other things, I doubt that people would need to fight each other.

The reason why people are so poor in these countries is because they kept poor. The ruling class knows that if somehow the masses are given some power and even some education, you'd have some dissidence. Thats why alot of dictators control the media in their respective countries, they want to keep a single view point which coincendentally is also the dictator's as well. Not too diverse if you ask me.

I remember reading a story about a North Korean where he said if the North Koreans saw the things that he sees in South Korea, the North Korea government would topple because its people would want a revolution. Thus, North Korea seals off its people from the outside world and holds its vice gripe on its people. How can the North Koreans know a better world, when it is never shown to them? Thats why I truly believe in exploring other ideologies and perspectives.

I am looking at the big picture, I am including everything from races, ethnicities, sexes, political views and other things that distinguish us. If we could understand the reasons for our differences, we could embrace it. If we actually examined other perspectives instead of just rejecting them at first glance, we could actually reach a utopian like world.

[Cipherous]

only if there is a high enough level of tolerance. otherwise, "diversity" just leads to race riots.

I think there is conflict when there is ignorance about the differences amongst the groups.

But diversity can range to alot of things other than race. Race riots are result of standing up against oppression by the majority (who is in power).

[Cipherous]

http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=9918

you can see in that racist views of Chinese thread how one sided individuals with a narrow grip of the world can view things. Notice how they only view the world through the window through white supremicists. Do they understand chinese culture? Do they understand why the Chinese do the things do they? Do they understand China's economy?

No...they're judging from their own perspectives and cultural values (and not really from anybody else's perspective). They have that "white is right" mentality because thats all they're ever exposed to on those neo nazi websites.

[VV o n g B a]

I am looking at the big picture, I am including everything from races, ethnicities, sexes, political views and other things that distinguish us. If we could understand the reasons for our differences, we could embrace it. If we actually examined other perspectives instead of just rejecting them at first glance, we could actually reach a utopian like world.
or alternatively, u could end up like bleeding heart liberal white guys who condescendingly think the world caters to them and they need to rectify the situation. i think it's possible to gather enuf knowledge so that u know what u don't know, but not to understand other perspectives completely b/c sometimes that is simply not possible unless we've lived their lives.

some things, most notably hot button religious issues, are not up for debate or tolerance with certain ppl. examination of other viewpoints is not an option. try mentioning a belief in evolution or the possibility of cloning to certain hardcore christians. if they were to modify their views or come to an "understanding," some of the foundations of their faith would crumble.

i'm not saying we shouldn't try, we should. and in the process, the world becomes better by bits and pieces. but that utopian world u mentioned is just that... utopian.

[Cipherous]

[QUOTE=VV o n g B a]
some things, most notably hot button religious issues, are not up for debate or tolerance with certain ppl. examination of other viewpoints is not an option. try mentioning a belief in evolution or the possibility of cloning to certain hardcore christians. if they were to modify their views or come to an "understanding," some of the foundations of their faith would crumble.
QUOTE]

Like I said there are different view points, they can pick and choose. If Christians who modified their views, then why are there Bapists, Protestants, Catholics,etc. Surely, those Christians' faith in God didn't crumble.

[SunWuKong]

hmm... Cipherous, methinks you've got the cause-and-effect of diversity and democracy reversed. it's democracy that's allowing the freedom for a society to be diverse, not the other way around.

[Cipherous]

hmm... Cipherous, methinks you've got the cause-and-effect of diversity and democracy reversed. it's democracy that's allowing the freedom for a society to be diverse, not the other way around.

actually, I think diversity is the cause of democracy. When I mean diverse, I don't mean racial diversity, I mean different perspectives and different ideas and ideas for change. I mean...why do you think democracy was created in the first place? It was a new perspective from how a system of government should be implemented that was an alternative to a small party or dictator rule.

Democracy allows diversity because democracy is caused by diversity. America before the American revolution was under the rule of the British, the American people weren't being represented thus the system which means the Americans were under was not diverse.

[ModernLogic]

I think it's only the United States that exalts "diversity" on a ridiculously high pedistal.... No, I'm not advocating a Borg-assimilation society. However, diversity can also translate to many interracial and inter-cultural conflicts. Besides, Asia is diverse enough as it is.

[SunWuKong]

actually, I think diversity is the cause of democracy. When I mean diverse, I don't mean racial diversity, I mean different perspectives and different ideas and ideas for change. I mean...why do you think democracy was created in the first place? It was a new perspective from how a system of government should be implemented that was an alternative to a small party or dictator rule.

Democracy allows diversity because democracy is caused by diversity. America before the American revolution was under the rule of the British, the American people weren't being represented thus the system which means the Americans were under was not diverse.

isn't that circular logic?

actually the idea of democracy or of a republic is one of the older forms of government, invented by the Greeks. and Americans simply modified the British system of representative government. it wasn't diversity that caused Americans to adopt a democratic (or technically, a republic) system of government. it was the disgruntlement of contributing to the British coffers while not having a voice in the British government.

[SunWuKong]

I think it's only the United States that exalts "diversity" on a ridiculously high pedistal.... No, I'm not advocating a Borg-assimilation society. However, diversity can also translate to many interracial and inter-cultural conflicts. Besides, Asia is diverse enough as it is.

well, Asia is diverse across national lines, but many Asian countries are very homogeneous within themselves. sure, you can say that China has 55 (officially recognised) ethnic minority groups in China, but 92% of the population in China is Han Chinese.

but there are also Asian countries like Singapore and Malaysia that also play up their racial diversity.

[SunWuKong]

The reason America became the most powerful country was not because of diversity. In my opinion, America is proudly what she is today because she has never really suffered from any prolonged wars on home soil during her history of just over 200 years (i.e. since independence). The Mexicans and the Indians were easily defeated and they were never a threat to America's rapid growth and development. Even during the second World War, there was not a single bombshell which landed on America's soil.

actually the US is the most powerful country today not so much because of stability, but because of WW2. pre-WW2 America was not all that stable.

[Blue dice]

but because of WW2 .... how?

pre-WW2 America was not all that stable .... what exactly?
I wouldn't say pre-ww2 America wasn't stable, it just wasn't anywhere near as powerful as it is today. WW2 allowed America to gain foothold in the power vacuum that was left immediately after the war. Europe and Asia were in ruin but America's industrial/technological complex was left completely intact. There was no time spent left "rebuilding" and a prosperous wartime boom helped push America into the forefront of the world. As the world catches up again (mainly Europe and China) America's superpower status will be diminished somewhat. As it is many countries rely intrinsically on America's military might so they can concentrate more on their own nation's development.

[SunWuKong]

I wouldn't say pre-ww2 America wasn't stable, it just wasn't anywhere near as powerful as it is today. WW2 allowed America to gain foothold in the power vacuum that was left immediately after the war. Europe and Asia were in ruin but America's industrial/technological complex was left completely intact. There was no time spent left "rebuilding" and a prosperous wartime boom helped push America into the forefront of the world. As the world catches up again (mainly Europe and China) America's superpower status will be diminished somewhat. As it is many countries rely intrinsically on America's military might so they can concentrate more on their own nation's development.

quite right. before WW2, the dominant global power was the UK. WW2 ravaged both Asia and Europe, and the infrastures in the US were pretty much left intact. additionally, after WW2, foreign policy in the US changed to that of active involvement instead of one that espoused a laissez-faire stance, thus the US was able to influence affairs in both Europe and Asia. the combination of these two developments eventually led it to become one of the two dominant global powers in the Cold War era.

[SunWuKong]

pre-WW2 America was not all that stable .... what exactly?

ever heard of the Great Depression? ;)

another point i also have to point out is that before WW2, the US was actually very isolationistic, protectionistic, and ethnocentric. it was in the WW2 era that the US started to embrace free trade, multi-culturalism, and diversity.

[ChairmanMah]

I wouldn't say pre-ww2 America wasn't stable, it just wasn't anywhere near as powerful as it is today. WW2 allowed America to gain foothold in the power vacuum that was left immediately after the war. Europe and Asia were in ruin but America's industrial/technological complex was left completely intact. There was no time spent left "rebuilding" and a prosperous wartime boom helped push America into the forefront of the world. As the world catches up again (mainly Europe and China) America's superpower status will be diminished somewhat. As it is many countries rely intrinsically on America's military might so they can concentrate more on their own nation's development.

pre wwII had the huge stock market crash and people lost money to banks.

and about europe and asia catching up, it is happening today right now, the u.s. currency is losing ground against others as we speak.

[kimpossible]

I wouldn't say pre-ww2 America wasn't stable, it just wasn't anywhere near as powerful as it is today.

I'd have to disagree. I'm one of the few people here old enough to grandparents who went through the Great Depression. I'd say the stories of their youth and young adulthood painted a picture of an America that was anything but stable.

[yoMAMA]

Asia is already the most diverse continent in the world.

[seanp]

Asia is already the most diverse continent in the world.

Amen :P

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Asia is already the most diverse continent in the world.
actually, the only place in which Asia wins out is in terms of diversity of income, and maybe religion. Africa wins out in linguistics and genetics.

[Cipherous]

hmm... Cipherous, methinks you've got the cause-and-effect of diversity and democracy reversed. it's democracy that's allowing the freedom for a society to be diverse, not the other way around.

isn't that circular logic?

actually the idea of democracy or of a republic is one of the older forms of government, invented by the Greeks. and Americans simply modified the British system of representative government. it wasn't diversity that caused Americans to adopt a democratic (or technically, a republic) system of government. it was the disgruntlement of contributing to the British coffers while not having a voice in the British government.

you said that democracy is responsible for diversity and I was merely saying the contrapositive, that diversity is responsible for democracy. I never said Diversity created democracy then democracy created diversity. I said democracy allows diversity not actually create diversity.

I think our definition of diversity differs, my definition of diversity is very broad (includes everything from ideas to different foods to whatever). Which makes my point kinda ambigious I know, but I just wanted to state that such countries such as Japan and Korea aren't very diverse (compared to Europe and America).

We all have this box in which we think, whether its narrow or broad. The range of that box is what we have seen and experience and alot of our environment shapes that box. This is box is the set of ideas or way of life that we're used to. I agree that we can't learn everything and that we can't empathize with every little thing so the size and range of the box in which we think is not infinite. However, just because its not infinite does not imply that we should stop learning and stop trying to expand that range or size of the box that we think in.

What I am simply trying to say is that the only way we can expand that box that we think in is to have diversity in our lives.

Whether it be trying new things, traveling to foreign countries, eating new foods, meeting new people, taking on another degree in another field or whatever. Its diversifying your life.

Yes, you might not like some of the new experiences you've tried or even like the people you've met or whatever but atleast you have broadened your horizons and you have a better grasp that life isn't just in your box of thinking.

[SunWuKong]

I think our definition of diversity differs, my definition of diversity is very broad (includes everything from ideas to different foods to whatever). Which makes my point kinda ambigious I know, but I just wanted to state that such countries such as Japan and Korea aren't very diverse (compared to Europe and America).

We all have this box in which we think, whether its narrow or broad. The range of that box is what we have seen and experience and alot of our environment shapes that box. This is box is the set of ideas or way of life that we're used to. I agree that we can't learn everything and that we can't empathize with every little thing so the size and range of the box in which we think is not infinite. However, just because its not infinite does not imply that we should stop learning and stop trying to expand that range or size of the box that we think in.

so your definition of diversity pretty much means being open-minded? in that case i don't think the US is very diverse at all. not sure about Japan or Korea. but all those cool gadgets didn't come out of Japan, and Japan didn't adopt a system of quality control in manufacturing that was rejected by the Americans (this is also happening with fuzzy logic, by the way), if they're not at least somewhat open-minded.

What I am simply trying to say is that the only way we can expand that box that we think in is to have diversity in our lives.

Whether it be trying new things, traveling to foreign countries, eating new foods, meeting new people, taking on another degree in another field or whatever. Its diversifying your life.

Yes, you might not like some of the new experiences you've tried or even like the people you've met or whatever but atleast you have broadened your horizons and you have a better grasp that life isn't just in your box of thinking.

by this definition, however, i'd say that Korea and Japan are probably more diverse, simply because probably more Koreans and Japanese travel abroad, etc, than Americans do. the average Americans' interests, more often than not, do not leave the borders of the US. they are not very internationally minded.

so American democracy was definitely not created by diversity, because the US is not very diverse, in your definition of diversity.

[yoMAMA]

In terms of race/color, the U.S, or maybe Brazil, i mean those 'new world', western hemisphere countries with a lot of immigration from their populations, is the most diverse, i guess.

[Cipherous]

so your definition of diversity pretty much means being open-minded? in that case i don't think the US is very diverse at all. not sure about Japan or Korea. but all those cool gadgets didn't come out of Japan, and Japan didn't adopt a system of quality control in manufacturing that was rejected by the Americans (this is also happening with fuzzy logic, by the way), if they're not at least somewhat open-minded.



by this definition, however, i'd say that Korea and Japan are probably more diverse, simply because probably more Koreans and Japanese travel abroad, etc, than Americans do. the average Americans' interests, more often than not, do not leave the borders of the US. they are not very internationally minded.

so American democracy was definitely not created by diversity, because the US is not very diverse, in your definition of diversity.

In a nut shell, yes...I am trying to say that people should be more open minded.

I am not sure if Japan or Koreans would be more diverse but thats just my thought. what percentage of Koreans and Japanese travel around the world? Probably a very minute fraction of the population. Certainly you can't compare the Koreans and Japanese that travel the world with just average Americans who don't travel.

I mean just by comparing ethnic compostions of Japan and Korea, its pretty homogenous. I am wondering since their population is pretty homogenous, then maybe their perspectives and way of thinking maybe homogenous as well. But I may be naive or just plain wrong but thats just my take.

[SunWuKong]

In a nut shell, yes...I am trying to say that people should be more open minded.

I am not sure if Japan or Koreans would be more diverse but thats just my thought. what percentage of Koreans and Japanese travel around the world? Probably a very minute fraction of the population. Certainly you can't compare the Koreans and Japanese that travel the world with just average Americans who don't travel.

well given that Japan and South Korea are developed nations, that are much smaller than the US, and that are in closer proximity with more nations, and the fact that Western popular media is very popular in Asia, you can certainly assume that South Korea and Japan are more exposed to different cultures and travel more than Americans. if we use that definition of "diversity", then Japanese and South Koreans are certainly more "diverse" than Americans.

I mean just by comparing ethnic compostions of Japan and Korea, its pretty homogenous. I am wondering since their population is pretty homogenous, then maybe their perspectives and way of thinking maybe homogenous as well. But I may be naive or just plain wrong but thats just my take.

race does not equal culture, especially in the US.

[deez nuts]

Does Asia need more diversity?

nah

[Cipherous]

well given that Japan and South Korea are developed nations, that are much smaller than the US, and that are in closer proximity with more nations, and the fact that Western popular media is very popular in Asia, you can certainly assume that South Korea and Japan are more exposed to different cultures and travel more than Americans. if we use that definition of "diversity", then Japanese and South Koreans are certainly more "diverse" than Americans..

Well, I guess I jumped the gun and didn't factor in all the factors. However, how many different cultures exist in Japan and Korea compared to America? Yes, Western media exists in Korean and Japan but what else is there? And its not even really Western media, its the Japanese and Korean's media just westernized.



race does not equal culture, especially in the US.

So does that mean since you're Asian American, you will have the same culture as a White American or Black American? I beg to differ, I think race plays a very important role in how one's culture is constructed. Granted some barriers are being broken down, race is still a big factor in how society judges a person.

Just a note, SunWuKong...I am not attacking you in any way nor do I feel that you should attack me. These are my views and you should have your own views. If we all agreed all the time, then it go against my idealism of diversity.

[SunWuKong]

arrrrrr i see ... the great depression.

and the relevance of such depression to america becoming the most powerful nation on earth is .... what???

something??? everything??? or nothing???

are you going to raise the stock market crash in 87, or the recent tech wreck example for the same reason too??

you asked me how pre-WW2 America was unstable. i mentioned the Great Depression. that had nothing to do with how the US became the most powerful nation on Earth.

please stop teasing me or to play any guessing games, i'm starting to think it is that same miscommunication issue which I never quite understand, nor appreciate.

I will certainly feel much better if you can feed me with some concrete answers.

sure, many people lost their jobs and also shitloads of wealth during the great depression. I have no doubt that they also lived the most unhappy life too.

however, is this to say that the period prior to great depreciation (150+ years) had nothing to do with america's success? i don't think so
did it not lay the foundations which were required and contributed to america's future growth and success?

of course it did!.

because otherwise, it's like saying america did not depend on any foundation and she became successful only after the stock market crash in 87, or after the digital revolution of the 90s blah blah tech wreck free trade blah etc etc.

can any of these happen without the same solid foundations which were laid over the past 200+ years, and helped consolidating america's position as the most powerful nation?

i never said pre-Great Depression periods had nothing to do with America's success. however, without WW2, the US would not have become a superpower. this is very clear to just about every historian out there.


may be, but i very much doubt it.

and if you ask me how was it possible for america to lay such fine and solid foundations in this short period of time vis-a-vis china or europe?

i would again say it was stability and uninterrupted development without wars or destruction in her homeland.

i hope there is no miscommunication here this time.

like i've already mentioned earlier in one of my posts, the US went through a drastic change of attitude domestically and of foreign policy after WW2. that is the "solid foundation" that propelled the US to superpower status. before WW2, the US was protectionistic, isolationistic, and very ethnocentric. after WW2, the US opened up to the free market, embraced multi-culturalism, and actively sought to influence other countries with its own interests.

how much more "concrete" can my point be?

[SunWuKong]

Well, I guess I jumped the gun and didn't factor in all the factors. However, how many different cultures exist in Japan and Korea compared to America? Yes, Western media exists in Korean and Japan but what else is there? And its not even really Western media, its the Japanese and Korean's media just westernized.

true.
there are many more cultures existing within the US than in Korea and Japan. but i feel that they are pretty much segregated. don't get me wrong, i see nothing wrong with the fact that they're segregated. if they're integrated, they'd probably lose their cultural uniqueness. i think what i have in mind when i say "average American" is white Americans, especially those that have not been in much contact with non-whites.

So does that mean since you're Asian American, you will have the same culture as a White American or Black American? I beg to differ, I think race plays a very important role in how one's culture is constructed. Granted some barriers are being broken down, race is still a big factor in how society judges a person.

i personally feel that those who primarily identify with being Asian American have the same culture as other Americans. that is, they live in American culture. being an ethnic minority in America doesn't automatically mean that you live in a different culture. go to an ethnic enclave, the people who live there and don't speak very well English, those are the ones who live in a different culture.

Just a note, SunWuKong...I am not attacking you in any way nor do I feel that you should attack me. These are my views and you should have your own views. If we all agreed all the time, then it go against my idealism of diversity.

oh no, i do not feel that you're attacking me, and i was not attacking you. i apologise if i gave the impression as being hostile.

[yangbahn50]

Yes, I think Asian countries need to be a little bit more diverse...but not too much.

If there is too much diversity, there will be many conflicts. Look at LA riot in 1992. People were mad at each other due to races.

Esp. the blacks who burnt down Koreatown stores and assaulted a white man to death.

Another example is the faultiness of Japanese companies. I've heard that employees working in Japanese companies must confirm to what their managers decide. There's no such a thing as feedback from employees on how to improve work situation and improving the manager's performance.

[blkazngirl]

Yes, they need to know that there are "other" races in the world.

[BigLew]

Don't know haven't lived in Asia since I was 5 and even if I did the whole of ASIA is a pretty big ass place right?

[SunWuKong]

this thread has been split (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=9992).