Reddit reviews Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925

Your question is very complex and has filled the contents of numerous books.

The distinguished founder of the subreddit, /u/Artrw, has expertise in this topic and wrote about the Act and the Open Door Policy and the Act's religious justification, as well as How did the first Chinese immigrants get to North America? broadly

These answers have further reading if you're interested. See also, for example, Strangers in The Land: Patterns of American Nativism by John Higham, which is on the subredddit's booklist.

​

/u/keylian previously answered Why were the majority of immigrants to the new world in the late 1800s and the early 1900s primarily from Europe, and not places like China...?

​

/u/Verbenablu discussed the legal justification for the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Edit: Here, let me grab your attention with some "bunk psychology" from le rebel media

Many of the links I'm posting are business-centric, which is supposedly cold and callous to common social issues. That's my point; even the beloved profit motive wants diversity. What you want to say is that it's all propaganda.

>Read Freud, Jung, Lacan, maybe even Zizek since you're a commie.

Yes, and what exactly, from their works, indicates an inclusive and skin-colour neutral approach to who you meet in society is regressive? Carl Jung? The guy who proposed that similar thoughts, images, mythologems, ideas and feelings are arisen from archetypes regardless of class, race, time period or location?

but yeah the psychology I mentioned sure is bunk

and yup, the openness to other cultures sure isn't a part of western success at all

Skeptics like you probably say diversity is only an artifact of success rather than a contributor, arguing that diverse populations flock to these places because they are rich or are becoming rich, but yea, nah. Not the case.

Look, it's perfectly fine to feel a sense of unity with those who share a similar background with you. But you're not for something, you're against something, and that is all non-white immigrants, and you play down the role they have had in Western society, the larger world, and in any individual's life, because of your trust in in-group bias.

You also hate integrated immigrants, that is, second-generation non-white, simply because they probably hail from a different culture. Lmao at "Whiteness/white purity/nationalism is responsible for the current western 'stable' society". The conservative backlash against immigration is nothing new. Before the 1920s in the US, it was Eastern and Southern Europe.

https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Land-Patterns-American-1860-1925/dp/0813531233

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856769/

People who believe fundamentally in social divisions like you lose track of what is actually real, and people like you who pretend non-white people aren't as valid as white people in the functioning of our current society, its past, its improvement, and in any person's social, cultural lives are wrong.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/collaborating-across-cultures

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/21/292225798/does-diversity-on-research-team-improve-quality-of-science

obviously there can be conflict

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/cultural-disharmony-undermines-workplace-creativity

Honestly, so many of these ideas about "inter-cultural communication" is just common courtesy, openness, respect, and common ground.

>The best subjective understandings you'll ever have in life are not "facts", or even concepts that should be put into words.

Yes, and when my subjective understanding cannot be put into words, what can I do? How would I convey any of that to you? The facts and results give you a sense of how that understanding is applying through the broader public, as those are not subjective. What else can I show you? I've already talked about in general accessible terms what inclusivity and diversity is about, so I don't know what else you want from my comments.

You're asking for some "novel" wisdom from me, as if I need to build up on top of the inclusivity hegemony, its motivations and past analysis. You call yourself an intellectual yet you want me to explicate all of this to its bone? No thanks. To any layman, their "subjective understanding" is indeed good enough to understand what I've posted so far, so that is good enough for me. I'm not going to start going into post-structuralist theory just for you.

>I'm obviously not reading any of your articles

yea.

>I'm done with you now, it's sad to watch someone clutch onto Google as an argument.

The point isn't to teach you the philosophy behind this through these articles. I want to see how'd you debunk this general consensus people have come to regarding inclusion and diversity. Which so far is just "all of it is modern-age psychology, which is a joke". Our 1000s of year of wisdom have indeed lead us up to one of the most peaceful, advanced and productive times in history.

> I'm not going to bother addressing with a 10-foot pole

ahhhhh, of course, now I recognize who I'm talking to, lmao

>I am le post human, you are so primitive

I assure you what I've been saying is, distinctly, human.