To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

James O. Putnam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James Osborne Putnam
James O. Putnam.jpg
4th Chancellor of the
University of Buffalo
In office
1895–1902
Preceded byE. Carleton Sprague
Succeeded byWilson S. Bissell

James Osborne Putnam (July 4, 1818 Attica, then in Genesee Co., now in Wyoming County, New York – April 24, 1903 Buffalo, Erie County, New York) was an American lawyer and politician from New York.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    510
    23 740
  • ✪ Lamenting the Loss of Social Capital (ft. John Derbyshire)
  • ✪ John McDowell interview: Avoiding the Myth of the Given and other philosophical thoughts

Transcription

You've got a real problem with diversity, well that also feeds into the immigration chapter as well. What's the problem with diversity? Why is that a bad thing? Well, I'd let Professor Robert Putnam speak, this is a Harvard professor of sociology He did a survey back in 2001, some of you may have heard of Robert Putnam. He's a very highly respected scholar in his field. He wrote a book called "Bowling Alone", back in the 90s. And it developed his main idea which is of "Social Capital" Economists talk about, physical capital which is goods and money and so on, and intellectual capital, and Putnam talks about social capital. Social capital is the value added to a society, or to a community - of social networks of all kinds. Boy scout troops, and churches, and carpools, ordinary friendships - every kind of voluntary social network. That all adds up to "social capital" And he says what I think is right, and I think we'd all agree, that social capital is a good thing. It's a good thing for society to have lots of social capital. And he wrote this book, "Bowling Alone" where he lamented the loss of social capital in America over the last quarter of the 20th century. After that, in 2000, he decided to try to find out why we're losing our social capital. Why are we losing it? What's driving that? And he found that one reason we're losing it is our diversity - our increasing diversity. He conducted surveys all over the United States - very big surveys - this is Harvard University, they've got a bundle of money. So, he had tens of thousands of people in these surveys that he did, trying to find out whether diversity helped or hindered social capital. And he found out to his dismay - because he himself is a liberal - he found out that the more diversity you have, the less social capital you have. The more diversity you have in a community the less people associate The less people talk to each other, the less people carpool, the less people join voluntary groups. And that was a very shocking finding for him as I tell the story in my book. He waited six years before publishing his results, he disliked his results so much. But, fortunately like me he's an empiricist and he wants the facts to speak, and at last he did let them speak. Diversity is not good for you. It's bad for your society. So we have this issue that diversity is not very good for society, A, and B that the United States has always been diverse and it can't not be diverse. We should struggle with the diversity that the nation was born with, but we're fools to make it worse. And we're fools to think that it's a positive and to pretend to ourselves that it's a positive. It's an obstacle to be overcome. It's not a positive. We can't avoid it, but we shouldn't make it worse. The present territory of the 48 states at the founding was about 62% white European, about 22% Native American, and about 16% African American. The great wave of immigration in the late 19th century, early 20th century mainly just made America whiter. So that in the 1950 census America was essentially 90% white, 10% black, and a rounding error of "other." So that's the diversity we had in 1950. I would argue that we could have coped with that diversity. We could have stayed one nation. We could have overcome the problems that we had in 1950 between black and white. We could have overcome them . . . if we had not been such bloody fools as to import tens of millions of even more diverse people. We should not have done that. In other words, as long as the black population stays below a certain amount we can cope? Yes, I think that's true. Yes. That's very Pat Buchanan-esque for example, isn't it? I like Pat Buchanan. He's a good guy. What's wrong with him? What's the alternative? Do you think that without a - what is it Professor Huntington says? - without a dominant Anglo Protestant culture that we can stay a united nation? I don't think we can. I think diversity could break us up. You go on to say: "A multicultural America will in time become a multi-creedal America with groups with different cultures espousing distinctive political values and principals rooted in their popular culture." What happened to that Statue of Liberty with that hand held high on the harbor? "Give us your tired, your poor, yearning to be free" The great melting pot? The great mosaic as David Dinkins once called it? What happened to that? Look around you Alan, I give the evidence in my book, and Professor Robert Putnam gives it too. Look around you. This level of diversity is not working. I think - my private guess, is that a nation probably can't hold itself together indefinitely without a majority culture of less than about 85%. I think about 10-15% is as much diversity as a nation can handle. And I think if you look around the world, and if you look at the examples from all around the world that I give in my book, I think they bear that out. Diversity is not good for you. It's bad for your society. It's sad, but it's true. And if it's true, I want to say it.

Life

He was the son of Congressman Harvey Putnam (1793–1855) and Myra (Osborne) Putnam (1795–1863). He graduated from Yale College in 1839. Then he studied law, was admitted to the bar, and commenced practice in Buffalo. On January 5, 1842, he married Harriet Foster Palmer (died 1853), and they had four children.

He was a member of the New York State Senate (31st D.) in 1854 and 1855. On March 15, 1855, he married Kate F. Wright (1835–1895), and they had three sons.

At the 1857 New York state election, he ran on the American party ticket for Secretary of State of New York, but was defeated by Democrat Gideon J. Tucker.

He was a presidential elector in 1860, voting for Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin.

He was U.S. Minister to Belgium from 1880 to 1882.

He was Chancellor of the University of Buffalo from 1895 to 1902.

He was buried at the Forest Lawn Cemetery, Buffalo.

Sources

External links

New York State Senate
Preceded by
George R. Babcock
New York State Senate
31st District

1854–1855
Succeeded by
James Wadsworth
Diplomatic posts
Preceded by
William C. Goodloe
U.S. Minister to Belgium
1880–1882
Succeeded by
Nicholas Fish II
Academic offices
Preceded by
E. Carleton Sprague
Chancellor of the University of Buffalo
1895–1902
Succeeded by
Wilson S. Bissell
This page was last edited on 23 June 2019, at 02:48
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.