Message from @Why Tea
Discord ID: 417860674673311744
With regards to the discussion about bone marrow transplants, the reason for race-specific donor consideration is due to the function of the organ and the tendency of graft vs host disease (GvHD) resulting from histo-incompatibility between cell systems. This is when transplant-dervied tissue attacks host tissues because of the expression of disparate cell surfaces molecules of host cells, which are recognized as foreign antigens by the immune cells generated from the transplanted marrow. These molecules are formally called: human leukocyte antigens. Even minor histocompatibility antigens may cause GvHD. Protein expression is correlated with race likely due to the 50,000+ years of divergent human evolution that encouraged the development of immune systems with high specificity according to local pathogens encountered.
Interesting thanks @Sean
No matter how hard i tried,basically in my zip code it came back to 53%majority white,yet yet 47% Hispanic schools,hmm,ya actaully alot higher as far as demographics go from what i see is alot higher in mexican too
Btw,i asked hubby later on,the majority of folks he works with in calibration,etc are mix of mostly asians and whites- so the factor of more asians in electronics is 1 i can apply to hubby's work.
@Argument of Perigee THATS SO AWESOME!!!!!
@Argument of Perigee man thats awesome i need to get me one of them
I was quite surprised to find the option for an inscribed copy absolutely free. Such great gift possibilities with this.
Wow!
Prof. Choi also argued that a strong immigrant identity keeps children out of
trouble. According to her research, foreign-born children of all races—black,
white, Asian, Hispanic—get into less trouble than American-born children of the
same groups. She said black immigrants adopted the bad habits of native-born
blacks most quickly, while Asians took the longest to reach the levels of
misbehavior of American-born Asians. Prof. Choi suggested immigrants should
be in no hurry to assimilate.50
Lisa Kiang of Wake Forest University found that a strong ethnic identity was
tied to a sunny outlook: “Adolescents with a high ethnic regard maintained a
generally positive and happy attitude . . . . So, having positive feeling about
one’s ethnic group appeared to provide an extra boost of positivity in
individuals’ daily lives.” She thought society should encourage strong ethnic
identity, at least for Chinese and Mexicans, who were the two groups she
studied.
What are the implications of ethnic identity for multi-racial and multi-ethnic
societies? Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Tampere, Finland, has probably
researched the effects of ethnic diversity more systematically than anyone else.
In a massive, book-length study, he measured ethnic diversity and levels of
conflict in 148 countries, and found correlations in the 0.5 to 0.9 range for the
two variables, depending on how the variables were defined and measured.
Homogeneous countries like Japan and Iceland show very low levels of conflict,
while highly diverse countries like Lebanon and Sudan are wracked with strife.53
Prof. Vanhanen found tension in all multi-ethnic societies: “Interest conflicts
between ethnic groups are inevitable because ethnic groups are genetic kinship
groups and because the struggle for existence concerns the survival of our own
genes through our own and our relatives’ descendants.”54 Prof. Vanhanen also
found that economic and political institutions make no difference; wealthy,
democratic countries suffer from sectarian strife as much as poor, authoritarian
ones: “Ethnic nepotism belongs to human nature and . . . it is independent from
the level of socioeconomic development (modernization) and also from the
degree of democratization.”
Others have argued that democracy is particularly vulnerable to ethnic
tensions while authoritarian regimes like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Tito’s
Yugoslavia can give the impression of holding it in check. One expert
writing in Foreign Affairs explained that for democracy to work “the party
or group that loses has to trust the new majority and believe that its basic
interests will still be protected and that there is nothing to fear from a
change in power.” He wrote that this was much less likely when opposing
parties represent different races or ethnicities.56
One must question the wisdom of then-president Bill Clinton’s explanation for
the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia: “[T]he principle we and our allies have been
fighting for in the Balkans is the principle of multi-ethnic, tolerant, inclusive
democracy. We have been fighting against the idea that statehood must be based
entirely on ethnicity.”59
That same year, the American supreme commander of NATO, Wesley Clark,
was even more direct: “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure
states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st
century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”
Charen
Mona Charen
Here is what she wrote in the NYT :
"But this time, and particularly in front of this crowd, it felt far more urgent to point out the hypocrisy of our side. How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump? And how can we participate in any conversation about sexual ethics when the Republican president and the Republican Party backed a man credibly accused of child molestation for the United States Senate?
I watched my fellow panelists’ eyes widen. And then the booing began.
I’d been dreading it for days, but when it came, I almost welcomed it. There is nothing more freeing than telling the truth."
Thanks!
<imagine_my_shock.jpg>
every time.
Back during my brief stint as a NeoCon-Libertarian, I enjoyed reading her columns.
In all countries ethnic diversity reduces trust. In Peruvian credit-sharing
cooperatives, members default more often on loans when there is ethnic diversity
among co-op members. Likewise, in Kenyan school districts, fundraising is
easier in tribally homogenous areas.63 Dutch researchers found that immigrants
to Holland were more likely to develop schizophrenia if they lived in mixed
neighborhoods with Dutch people than if they lived in purely immigrant areas.
Surinamese and Turks had twice the chance of getting schizophrenia if they had
to deal with Dutch neighbors; for Moroccans, the likelihood quadrupled.
Thomas A. Kochan, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, has
probably researched corporate diversity more extensively than anyone. His
conclusion after a five-year study? “The diversity industry is built on sand.”
Prof. Kochan initially contacted 20 major companies that have publicly
committed themselves to diversity, and was astonished to find that not one had
done a serious study of how diversity increased profits or improved operations.
He learned that managers are afraid that race-related research could bring on
lawsuits, but that another reason they do not look for results is “because people
simply want to believe that diversity works.”
Research shows the negative effects of diversity on the United States.
Robert Putnam of Harvard studied 41 different American communities
that ranged from the extreme homogeneity of rural South Dakota to the
very mixed populations of Los Angeles. He found a strong correlation
between homogeneity and levels of trust, with the greatest distrust in the
most diverse areas. He was unhappy with these results, and checked his
findings by controlling for any other variable that might affect trust, such
as poverty, age, crime rates, population densities, education, commuting
time, home ownership, etc. These played some role but he was forced to
conclude that “diversity per se has a major effect.”
61
What diversity does ^
Putnam's work is a huge boon for us.
Someone intellectually honest enough, even though liberal, to publish work that disproved his hypothesis.
Diversity training does not even increase diversity. A 2007 study sifted
through decades of employment statistics companies must file with the
federal government and found that training had no effect at all on the
number of women or minorities in management. “Companies have spent
millions of dollars a year on these programs without actually knowing,
‘Are these efforts worth it?’ ” explained Frank Dobbin of Harvard. “In the
case of diversity training, the answer is no.” Sometimes diversity training
even appeared to provoke resentment among managers and make
advancement more difficult for minorities.96
Many observers have pointed out that the search for diversity does not include
points of view. One study of the political affiliations of American university
professors found very few conservative affiliations, such as Republican or
Libertarian: Harvard—4 percent; Penn State—17 percent; Stanford—11 percent;
UCLA—6 percent; UC Santa Barbara—1 percent; Brown—5 percent; Cornell—
3 percent. The rest were leftist. In the 2000 presidential election, in which
George Bush and Al Gore each got 48 percent of the popular vote and Ralph
Nader got 3 percent, 84 percent of Ivy League faculty voted for Al Gore, 9
percent for George Bush, and 6 percent for Ralph Nader.
It should be clear by now that whatever Americans say about diversity, it is
not a strength. If it were a strength, Americans would practice it spontaneously.
It would not require “diversity management” or anti-discrimination laws. Nor
would it require constant reminders of how wonderful it is. It takes no
exhortations for us to appreciate things that are truly desirable: indoor plumbing,
vacations, modern medicine, friendship, or cheaper gasoline.
America’s enthusiasm for diversity therefore cannot be explained by searching
for its benefits. It can be understood only as a moral campaign that arises from
unsupported but rigidly enforced assumptions about race. There is enormous
momentum behind the orthodox view, but even orthodoxies crumble when they
are obviously wrong.
J.B.S. Haldane noted with a smile that there are four stages new ideas go
through before they are accepted: 1. This is worthless nonsense. 2. This is an
interesting, but perverse, point of view. 3. This is true, but quite unimportant. 4. I
always said so.105 The realization that diversity is not a strength is somewhere
between stages one and two, but the evidence for it is so strong that it will
eventually reach stage four.
When that happens, Western societies will have to answer some very
uncomfortable questions: If our efforts to increase diversity were a mistake, what
do we do now? Can diversity be reversed humanely? If so, how? Or do we
simply carry on, but more humbly and with lower expectations? These are some
of the questions we will examine in the concluding chapter.
Much of our evolution as a distinct
species took place before the invention of agriculture, during the millions
of years our human and proto-human ancestors lived in hunter-gatherer
bands. The members of small bands were usually related to each other,
and it was important for them to cooperate and even sacrifice for each
other. At the same time, strangers were potentially dangerous competitors
for food and territory.
As Edward O. Wilson of Harvard has explained:
"The strongest evoker of aggressive response in animals is the sight of a
stranger, especially a territorial intruder. This xenophobic principle has
been documented in virtually every group of animals displaying higher
forms of social organization." 4
- Groups that did not defend territory against intruders were less likely to
survive. “Our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism evolved in the
struggle for existence because it was rational and useful,” explains
Finnish scholar Tatu Vanhanen.5
Today our lives are vastly different from
those of hunter-gatherers, but research on human behavior suggests that
many basic instincts are unchanged.
-Many kinds of animal behavior can be explained by genetic similarity
theory. Animals have a preference for close kin, and study after study has shown that they have a remarkable ability to tell kin from strangers. Frogs
lay eggs in bunches, but they can be separated and left to hatch
individually. When tadpoles are then put into a tank, brothers and sisters
somehow recognize each other and cluster together rather than mix with
tadpoles from different mothers.6