Of course I'm painting with a broad brush, we're discussing the broad strokes and for that it would be useless to discuss the fine print until you have reason to zoom in into part of it. I always try to use the correct level of magnification in discussing something.You keep painting with these incredibly broad strokes and I'm having to wonder where the source is on this? I know for an absolute fact, that genetics does not pick one's culture. A Hispanic child raised by two white parents is still far more likely to have a predisposition to, and participate in white culture. If you can back up the "culture/behavior is a result of genetics" I'm all for reading it.
My main source for this, besides unquantifiable personal experience and observations, is the studies of Robert Plomin.
I could link to the studies, but from previous discussions I find that this video communicates it better for general purposes:
Should also start at the relevant part at 16:00
It isn't 100% genetic, but it is predominantly genetic. Robert Plomin also studied the differences between in environment for siblings and how it contributes to different results. All in all very interesting work.
There is nothing disingenuous about what I wrote. I was very clear and open about the fact that it is a generalization and therefor not true in every case, but true in general and you seem to mostly agree with that.There's that again. People will generally prefer others who share their value and culture, and this is more to do with the fact that, yes, racial groups generally share the same values. However, it's disingenuous to imply that people always enjoy being around others like them, even when the share little outside of aesthetic similarities. I myself generally do not enjoy being around others like me outside of family (likely due to growing up in the dominant culture), and tend to gravitate towards others who are a part of the same culture, not racial group.
You instead attribute this to environment/culture. I don't think you will continue that view if you read Plomin's work and consider its implications.
If you can improve on that work, I would be glad and open and happy to learning about it.
I suppose it depends on how you define hate. I think there is a distinct difference between elective segregation and forced segregation.This is generally the assumption because folks with these beliefs often do use it to spread hate, propagate segregation and even outright displacement/genocide (See: Black Lives Matter and the Neo-Nazi movement), Doesn't mean it's always the case, but there is a strong correlation.
Just as I think there is a difference between elective integration and forced integration.
Since integration is failing practically everywhere, we'll continue seeing more and more forced integration.
The banning of burka's in france is one example. The change of UK police to be allowed to wear hijabs is another example. Both of these are light examples of forced integration, one at the expense of native population, the other at the expense of the migrant population.
I think forced integration is the more hateful of the two, one that leads to lower trust and social cohesion, as we know from putnam's study. Very different from elective integration, something that I personally am the product of. Though the difference as far as I can tell are moral rather than difference of result.
Would you define a group of black people who want an all black college as inherently hateful? Is segregation hateful by definition? And if it is, who has the moral authority to impose integration?