Why is diversity seen as in inherent good? Even if it is...

Ideological roots, mang. I guess you might argue that the ideology of multiculturalism is subconsciously driven by women's reproductive imperative to seek genetic diversity in mates and elaborated by the willingness of thirstly beta males to intellectually justify such an ideology for female attention?

To understand diversity, you'd have to understand the historical benefit of immigration.
When the US was first founded, it was comprised of mostly ethnic Anglos. A form of controlled immigration was initially allowed other populations, such as the Irish or Scottish; but it was the benefit of having these people in the workforce, usually as indentured servants (contract slaves), that made the US a prosperous nation. After the initial white slave trade grew, so did the African one; they imported slaves from Africa. America prospered in diversity, because their workforce was specialized (Jewish lawyers and bankers, African laborers, Irish potato farmers, English Authors, etc). Today America still keeps this tradition going, as most immigrants coming in are work-force replacers (mexicans), doctors from India, and so forth. Diversity historically was about self-interest of government; and by "government", I mean the people in the government who are controlled by the lobbyists and bankers running the country for their own self interest. Democracy and republicanism create this mentality of self-interest, because everyone in a democracy wants a share of the pie. Had the United States been opposed to immigration, and maybe changed its constitution a little, the English would still only exist on the east coast of the US, and much of the Native Americans would still be alive. Demographics of the US show blacks to be even GREATER in number than descendants of the original English settlers.

>I guess you might argue that the ideology of multiculturalism is subconsciously driven by women's reproductive imperative to seek genetic diversity in mates and elaborated by the willingness of thirstly beta males to intellectually justify such an ideology for female attention?
Kek.

Tribal leaders in PNG today are forced to buy women from other tribes to ensure their sons are not turning to incest. It's got nothing to do with women, diversity has been institutionalized in our tribes, since forever, we still do it.

Take that to mean whatever you want. It's factually correct.

>particularly if all good, moderate people of all cultures (i.e., the ones we take in) are somehow magically tapped into the same Judeo-Christian, Enlightenment humanist values?

Where do you derive this assumption from?

It's the standard line from the modern, regressive left. When the left talks about moderate immigrants being "upstanding, good people", we are judging them from the perspective of historically Christian beliefs as charity, generosity, meekness, and tolerance.

It is the irony of multiculturalism. We bring in people, presumably because a plurality of values is better, but justify doing so by appealing to the fact that most immigrants have relatively homogenous values seen as virtuous by the host nation. This is obviously a further farce seen through rose-colored glasses.

It's doublethink. Liberal politicians realize they don't want true diversity, but at the same time shill for it like crazy.

Because the last time Europe was more like modern Korea or Japan, prideful of homogeneity and their whiteness, a certain someone took that attitude to it's logical extreme and killed six million Jews.

Just as WW1 killed the European's love and respect for war, honor, and rigid social hierarchies, changing the whole continent's POV from the ancient GLORIOUS BATTLE mindset to today's avoid-conflict-at-all-costs mentality, WW2 forever erased the European's previously unshaken belief of his own superiority. Like an edgy kid who says he could kill a man with no problem, then reacts with horror at seeing a body, the European, so proud of his civilization, looked at the concentration camps horrified that after centuries of hating Jews as all good Christians did, someone actually tried to exterminate them, and saw that their attitudes were what allowed that to happen, and were determined to never let it happen again, with Jews or any other race, and mostly dropped their superiority complexes and resolved to see all others as their equals. Isolation from the other races would only serve to maintain that separation between white Europeans and everyone else, and Euros would only ever fully come to comprehend that the Negro, the Asian, the Arab and the Indian (feather and dot) were human beings with the exact same feelings, emotions, problems, and worries as they themselves if they lived together with those people.

But this isn't something one has to worry about in a sizable, modern society. With cheap travel and large effective breeding populations, we don't have any real threat of inbreeding, even within ethnically homogenous countries.

Why is it only now, when exogamy for purposes of ensuring genetic quality is not really necessary, that multiculti stuff has taken off like crazy?

>not blaming both the left and the right
Keep falling for the left-right meme.

Why use a metric from a group you don't identify with as legitimate? Moderate has never meant humanist. Maybe secular, but not all moderates are secular; and not all native citizens are moderate or secular.

Japan and Korea are pretty much American puppets.

Calling a puppet "prideful" is oxymoron.

Reading through this thread. You went from posing a general question to talking about leftists. Are you actually looking for answers or are you simply trying to reinforce your existing beliefs?

A continuous influx of labor benefits the interests of industry. A capitalist is not going to be to picky where workers come from as long as the money flows and he doesn't have to live with them. Diversity was a justification made ex-post facto to: 1) justify the continuation of these policies and 2) elevate the positions of key ethnic groups, thereby winning their loyalty and minimizing the possibility of ethnic riots.

>particularly if all good, moderate people of all cultures (i.e., the ones we take in) are somehow magically tapped into the same Judeo-Christian, Enlightenment humanist values?
As an aside, I think the west is is doing a haphazard job implementing multiculturalism for the reasons you mentioned. For those who grew up in a culture so dominating and pervasive that also possesses an intellectual tradition that stresses universal truths, that type of western-centrism is unsurprising. Unfortunately, when you attempt to universalize something so central to societies such as mores and values, it strips and waters down the meaning of foreign cultures.

Also maybe it's because I'm American, but I've met way too many people who seem to equate different cultures with funny foods and clothing.

But this had been something Europe had flirted with for years, with it's fascination with the noble savage and concepts such as Kipling's "The White Man's Burden". To say that Europeans hated all other peoples is simply not accurate. Why would people commit untold effort and money to evangelize to primitive people without a clear path to a return on investment, let alone an immediate one.

The postwar turn attempts to reconcile a commitment to Christian ethics such as charity with a renewed reminder of our ever-present sinfulness and capacity for evil. This has proven to be an achilles heel for anybody that would call into question the legitimacy of Western values and legacies.

Multiculturalism is good for capitalism, and maybe globalism if you want to broaden defined terms. All major capitalist nations are also multicultural and don't practice homogeneity. All this surmountable wealth the west has acclimated is in part thanks to this narrative. Face it, immigrants may not share your values, but they contribute to the economy and that's all that matters.

Just admit you don't like people that aren't white.

The good guys lost WWII

>money is all that matters
I wonder who could be behind this post...

>Why is it only now, when exogamy for purposes of ensuring genetic quality is not really necessary, that multiculti stuff has taken off like crazy?

Again, you asked for the roots of this ideology. I gave it to you.

A capitalist.

Exactly. We wan't token diversity. But what is the inherent value of having some of you population walk around with scarves on their head, while others walk around with turbans?

We just want to be able to point to a bunch of people who act like anglo-europeans, but come in more interesting shades and wear fun clothes. It is a futile attempt of obfuscating the fact that the ethical and cultural mores we hold dear are the product of anglo-european societies and anglo-european cultures.

Nonetheless, "moderate" has ethical connotations regarding ones conduct, namely disdain for violence and tolerance of speech. This is indeed absolutely relative and prescribed as a historical consequence of Christian morality and, later, Enlightenment values. These originated in Western Europe at the hands of Western European, male scholars. Insofar as we like and respect these values and their consequences for society, we should honor that fact and not take them for granted.

I can respect a culture, do business with their people, and trade with them without demanding that we should be joined at the hip. Feeling the need to do prove anything more for the benefit of vague ideological principles only speaks to bizarre psychological hangups, not the practice of capitalism.

>t. George Soros

He's white and wealthy. Thanks for proving my point.

In what way has the right advanced a narrative about multiculturalism significantly different than that posed by the left? It is just more convenient to talk about the former as the left has alway been the primary ideological proponent of multiculturalism. The neoconservative right has just parasitically globbed on for pragmatic reasons whenever it suited them.

>((((((((((((((white)))))))))))))))
Holy shit. You just can't make this stuff up.