Diversity is defined as differences at the most basic levels. We are taught by science that diversity of flora and fauna is good and for that matter, so is diversity of your investment portfolio. Many people in the United States would have us believe that diversity of human beings is good as well. They think that we must have this and that is what made the United States ‘great’.
No. What made us the largest economy on the planet was not diversity. We became the largest economy on Earth in about 1880, long before we had much diversity, so far as physical traits—race, age or sex are concerned. Fact is, we had just had a mass immigration of Irish people some time before that. This could hardly be called diverse. Irish people were already here. Ellis Island did not start accepting immigrants until 1893.
We became large mainly because of the ‘city on the hill’, an example for the rest of the world to follow, some thought. Also, we became large because of the newspapers of Europe kept printing that the streets of the New World (the US) were paved in gold. People could come here and become rich. Both are myths. The few that did get rich were ones that abused immigrants by making them work in sweatshops, early in the Industrial Era.
People tend to think that diversity is good probably because that is what we have. They are trying to be ‘positive thinkers’, instead of realistic thinkers. They put this spin on everything. They are intentionally being inclusive. Other countries on the planet throughout history have been great and they were NOT diverse. Why is it all of a sudden that diversity is so desirable? This goes counter to world history. It bucks the trend. Most of the world’s economic powers do not have diversity of races. We are the anomaly. Look at China and Japan and just any other country.
It is ironic that I watched, on youtube, the George Foreman- Ken Norton fight where the announcer said that Kenny Norton was a positive thinker, and he had even won some award for positive thinking. The announcer set Norton up as something special. Norton proceeded to get knocked out quickly, just a couple of minutes later. So much for positive thinking. It is just spin.
According to this theory, only people that look like me can possibly understand me or represent me in government. I think that this is racist, sexist and age discrimination. Granted birds of a feather do tend to flock together but we are not birds. We are not animals.
As a counter-example I once watched a PBS talk show called, To the Contrary, which has 4 or 5 women discussing women’s issues. According to this theory I should not agree with any of them because they are all women. But I did agree with one in particular. The one that I agreed with most often was a black, single, young and obviously a woman. I am none of the above. I am married, older, white and a man. So, I should not agree with her but I did. Explain to me please why this contradiction occurred. This agreeing between her and I would be an oxymoron if the diversity people were right.
Humans are part animal but mostly higher order beings. We think. Well some of us do. Diversity of thought may be advantageous but not diversity of race, sex, age other any other physical trait. But the latter is just what most of you think about when thinking about diversity. You look at diversity through race or sex or age colored glasses, when you should be looking through clear glasses if any—no tint or distortion at all. Diversity of race does not mean diversity of thought, as I have already shown. If you use some physical trait to define diversity then you are that trait. I mean defining diversity based on race is racist; defining diversity based on sex is sexist; defining diversity based on age is discrimination based on age. You do not have to have this discrimination as bad intentions to discriminate. Your intentions may be good but the actions are still bad. You are still trying to elevate one group over another.
Diversity of thought also has its problems, especially if taken to an extreme. If we all thought differently then we would be incapable of agreeing on defining what are the problems and how to solve them. We would even be at each others throats. Agreement, at least some, is important for people to coexist.
I am not altogether sure that non-diversity is even possible. We are all unique therefore humanity is diverse by its very nature. Yes, we all have similarities as well, but even one difference means diverse. Most of us believe that peace is better than war, for example. So, why do we worry about diversity? We should not worry about it!
As a side issue: You do realize that Obama is NOT the first black president. He is only at most ½ black. There have been at least 5 other presidents that were part black including Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. He may look more black and maybe he is percentage wise, but who is to say that paintings of the other presidents did not mask their skin color. We have no color photographs. Once more Obama’s father was not American, that is, a descendent of a slave. But many blacks thought of him as their president, because he looked like them. They may have changed their minds by now.
Appearance over substance is one of my greatest pet peeves. Diversity based on any physical trait is just plain wrong. It is a huge non-truth. It is at best a misconception and at worst it is a lie. It is a land of fantasy and not reality.
You should treat all people with respect and dignity. They should be hired or accepted to a school and basically for anything based on their ability to do the job or their scholarly traits, not on their race or sex or age.