CommentaryDavid Sims

Yes, Racial Diversity Creates Distrust

by David Sims

(Commentary on “Does Diversity Create Distrust?” by Daisy Grewal, Scientific American)

THERE ARE flaws in Grewal’s thinking that might arise from an implicitly racist definition of racism on her part. The racism in the definition of racism consists of some notion that only members of Race A can be racist, when, of course, no such thing is true. By adopting that assumption, a host of fatuous nonsense can be “concluded” through unsound argument, such as the idea, recently become popular, that “math is racist” because, generally speaking, Blacks can’t cope with mathematics as well as Whites can.

In “Does Diversity Create Distrust?” Daisy Grewal [who looks like she could be a sibling of Meghan Markle — Ed.] cites a study by sociologists Maria Abascal, of Princeton University and Delia Baldassari, of New York University, who conclude that Harvard professor Robert Putnam was wrong to conclude, in his famed 2007 study, that racial diversity has contributed to a loss of social trust and cohesion.

Grewal wrote:

Putnam’s study, which used a large, nationally representative sample of nearly 30,000 Americans, found that people living in more diverse areas reported lower levels of trust in their neighbors. They also reported less interest in voting, volunteering, and giving to charity. In other words, greater diversity seemed to be linked to both feelings and behaviors that threaten a sense of community. The finding was alarming to many people, including Putnam himself, because the U.S. continues to grow in racial and ethnic diversity with each passing decade.

Putnam’s research was widely cited, both within academia and by the media, as a counterargument to popular notions about the benefits of diversity. His paper was even cited in a brief filed for the high-profile case, Fischer v. University Texas, concerning the legal fairness of affirmative action processes at public universities. Abigail Fisher, a white woman, was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and filed suit, alleging racial discrimination on the part of the university due to affirmative action. Putnam filed a brief of his own, objecting to the use of research findings in making a case against diversity policies. But what if the conclusions stemming from Putnam’s research were actually wrong to begin with?

Sociologists Maria Abascal, of Princeton University, and Delia Baldassari, of New York University, published a paper late last year which refutes Putnam’s conclusions. After reanalyzing the same dataset used by Putnam, Abascal and Baldassari asserted that when it comes to distrust and diversity, most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities. In other words, greater distrust may stem from prejudice rather than from diversity per se. Therefore, Putnam’s conclusion that racial diversity leads to less altruism and cooperation amongst neighbors was incorrect. If there is a downside to diversity, it has less to do with the behavior of racial minorities and more to do with how Whites feel when living amongst non-Whites.

Although I see that the paper of Abascal and Baldassari (one wonders whether that is her true surname) disagrees with the paper of Putnam, I don’t see that the former “refutes” (i.e. disproves) the latter. That kind of presumptuous phrasing should have been caught and called out by Scientific American‘s editors, but it was not.

Regarding the statement “[A] and [B] asserted that when it comes to distrust and diversity, most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities” — obviously, A and B want their readers to believe that the reason for the greater distrust among White people is due to prejudice. But that isn’t the case. Examine the federal crime statistics, the crime statistics of any state in the US that tracks crime by race, or, for that matter, the crime rates of any country in the world, and you will see that for nearly any crime of violence, avarice, or moral turpitude, the per capita rate for its perpetration is significantly higher among (most) non-Whites than it is among Whites, with the exception being, among crimes, e.g. DUI, and, among demographic groups, East Asians, whose per capita rates for such crimes are slightly lower than are those of Whites. If you force together two races having differing per capita rates for committing crimes, then the race having the lower rates will indeed have the greater distrust with respect to the race having the higher rates.

That’s understandable. That’s normal. It’s obviously how things are. Whites have more reason to distrust (and to fear) multiracialism than most non-Whites do. A Black among Whites is almost always more secure in his person and property than is a White among Blacks. By omitting any mention of the racial differential in the per capita rates for violent and property crimes, Abascal and Baldassari make a crucial error that discredits their attempted refutation of Putnam.

Yet, somehow, Scientific American‘s editors let it stand.

[Those same editors immediately retracted dozens of articles from the Chinese-language edition of their Web site when Beijing objected to them. — Ed.]

* * *

Source: Author

Previous post

Darkle's Domain

Next post

Guns

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Pierre
Pierre
10 March, 2021 8:47 am

Michael Sherman one of the editors of Scientific American as well as the Skeptic magazine is a Jew. What do you expect. They are a false opposition, nothing really skeptical about them if it goes agains the official version.

guest
guest
Reply to  Pierre
10 March, 2021 2:52 pm

I don’t think Shermer (not Sherman) is a jew although he looks and acts like one and Shermer sounds like it could be a jewish last name. I recall reading that he was raised by very religious christians – baptists or maybe even the snake handlers.

Unfortunately, Shermer hasn’t directed his “skepticism” at the holocau$t narrative. In fact, he’s defended it. If I’ve read any of his columns, they must have been largely forgettable.

I see the cover of SA’s latest issue purports to tell us why justice movement succeed.

BuelahMan
BuelahMan
Reply to  guest
13 March, 2021 7:18 am

Shermer is the jewiest non-jew alive. As for the Holohoax, he even wrote a book defending the lie.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Denying_History.html?id=Q-0B9-D5Vz4C

guest
guest
10 March, 2021 9:44 am

I miss the pre-1990 Scientific American when it was about … science. Then, most political articles in SA concerned arms control and SDI. Most of the articles were actually written by scientists. Things started to go south when they stopped their Amateur Scientist column. The last guy to write the column turned out to be a devout christian (which had no bearing on the column’s focus on making your own scientific instruments) and they terminated him. Shows their “tolerance”.

If there remains a scientific publication aimed at the layman or non-specialist that does not have a PC slant, I haven’t found it.

Howard
Howard
Reply to  guest
14 March, 2021 7:37 pm

I couldn’t possibly agree with you more. There was a time when Scientific American was a premier and quality magazine that represented the state of mathematical and scientific American progress that was meant to educate laymen and professionals alike in what was a neutral category of expository brilliance unmatched by most magazines. In fact most magazines that were in these categories were neutral in all respects in terms of what their content was in what was regards to the current political and sociological issues of that day. But then of course they became infiltrated by Jews (as usual) and they voluntarily and possibly enthusiastically decided to engage in race baiting and general Niggerisms with the express purpose of denigrating white science and white progress which, by the way, has benefited… Read more »

Lycurgus
Lycurgus
10 March, 2021 3:15 pm

I went from being ambivalent towards blacks to actively hating them within the span of two decades. I’d blame interacting with them as the culprit.

Here’s hoping the Gates’ vaccination efforts are going well!

ulysses freire da paz jr
ulysses freire da paz jr
10 March, 2021 5:22 pm

If you like multiculturalism, then set up an aquarium randomly with different fish breeds to see what happens. The pleasant and colorful apparent main scene has fatal consequences. Some fish live at the expense of others. There are wars for territory, repressive processes whenever fins are nibbled, some races proliferate much faster than any other, and few sooner or later will simply be devoured. Mixed Race People Have More Psychological Disorders  https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/12/mixed-race-people-have-more-psychological-disorders/ The Mental Disorder of White Self-Hatredhttps://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/the-mental-disorder-of-white-self-hatred/ “IT’S TRUE many members of various races are good people in that they act civilly and do not purposely harm others. But just because that is true does not mean that different races will mix well when they are together in the same society.” https://nationalvanguard.org/2017/08/why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/ Mixed Race Infants are Unhealthy Because of… Read more »

Truthweed
Truthweed
Reply to  ulysses freire da paz jr
15 May, 2021 6:39 pm

Ah Ulysses, you are always an education and a pleasure!

Geli
Geli
10 March, 2021 11:59 pm

Mr. Sims, you are right about distrust within different races. When I was younger, my parents were dead broke and we lived in a black area. I was seven, and the blacks acted so subhuman, and what does a white therapist tells me as an excuse, “because they were poor.” So was I and my family wasn’t that crazy. The two years I went there I had heartburn. When we finally moved to a white area, the whites were not as agressive, but the non-whites that went there were two-faced, prideful, deceitful people. I didn’t make friends with any of them, they made it hard to like them.

Josef Tone
Josef Tone
Reply to  Geli
15 March, 2021 5:42 pm

The system has made it clear that the suffering of whites at the hands of blacks can never be on the table at any time for any reason. That creates a special psychological hell for many today as pandering to blacks is a daily routine. Their behavior is never to be discussed.

Geli
Geli
Reply to  Josef Tone
16 March, 2021 12:25 am

Oh, rightly so. Look at their behavior and I am glad I don’t pander to them. I revolt in disgust. I owe them nothing and they owe me nothing, but they are creating a black society that will never be satisfied or content, they don’t even love each other how can they even love themselves.

Truthweed
Truthweed
Reply to  Geli
15 May, 2021 6:43 pm

Geli, they are resentful because they are our dependents. They should advance from adolescence and move to Africa where they can provide their own people with food.