3 ms·
We're going in a loop. GP comment said that it was easier to implement certain policies in an homogeneous country (and we all understand that the poster means "
by gjulianm 6y ago
We're going in a loop. GP comment said that it was easier to implement certain policies in an homogeneous country (and we all understand that the poster means "racially homogeneous"). My point is that racially homogeneous or not, there will be different voting blocs aligned on whatever and implement policies will be different. That's it. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm saying that you can't just say "oh they're all the same race so it's easier" because it isn't necessarily true at all. You can find racially homogeneous countries with non-racial divisions similar or larger than US's racial divisions.
That's it, that's the point. Talking just about "racial homogeneity" when discussing implementing certain policies does not make sense at all because then you're ignoring all other possible divisions.
- ttt0 6y agoI can say that and I did. Those divisions might change over time and it's one less thing to be concerned about. The other divisions are usually gender, age and class. You can't do anything about gender and age. You somewhat can about class. Unless you're like America already, it's very easy with race - just control the immigration.
- gjulianm 6y agoLanguage, physical location, type of work, religion... so many possible divisions that just focusing on race does not make sense. In some countries race might not be as dividing. You are thinking as if the US framework was the same as in the rest of the world, and it isn’t. I’ll put you an example: in a few months we will have elections in my region, Madrid. We have quite a lot of immigrants (15-20% IIRC) and yet it’s not an axis of division between groups. District and wealth matters much, much more.