By Jared TaylorInitially published American Renaissance, July/August 1997
The idea that diversity is one of the country’s great strengths is now so firmly rooted that virtually anyone can evoke it, praise it, and wallow in it without fear of contradiction. It has become one of the great unassailably American ideas, like democracy, patriotism, the family, or Martin Luther King.
The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, “The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great.” A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, “With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us.” In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.
In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, “The expedition that Columbus . . . began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492.”
Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever.
Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. We didn’t have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today, said Mrs. Clinton. I’m sad we didn’t have it, because it would have been a great value, as I’m sure you will discover.
Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity at least of the kind that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are promoting is a great advantage for America is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.
Nevertheless there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc. a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and sexuality. One might call this status diversity.
What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.
The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.
The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, “The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great.” A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, “With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us.” In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.
In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, “The expedition that Columbus . . . began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492.”
Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever.
Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. We didn’t have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today, said Mrs. Clinton. I’m sad we didn’t have it, because it would have been a great value, as I’m sure you will discover.
Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity at least of the kind that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are promoting is a great advantage for America is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.
Nevertheless there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc. a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and sexuality. One might call this status diversity.
What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.
The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.
Continue this very readable and intelligent article at American Resistance
5 comments:
The entire diversity idea is clearly the obviously self-contradictory concept possible, and yet, the sheeple believe it. Our people are so easily led today, partly because they are fearful and partly because they are mentally weak, that they will assent to the most entirely absurd propositions such as this one.
In virtually every aspect of life, uniformity is a virtue, wither it be making cloth, grinding corn, marking off a measuring line, or writing paper. Imagine that you were making cloth and some parts of the bolt were coming out 36 inches wide, other parts 40 inches wide, and other parts as much as 45 inches wide, all in the same piece. Is this good? Or if you are grinding corn, do you want a few large, whole kernels left in the meal, just for diversity? Perhaps when you make a measuring line, you will say, "I want a nice mix of large inches, small inches, and medium size inches," all for the sake of diversity. And then your diversified writing paper may not be too smooth, having ridges, holes, and ragged edges, but hey ... its for diversity.
Why on earth would any sane person think that diversity in the human population is a good thing? It was sold, based on the idea that some biological systems so an advantage when there is a degree of diversity. We have known this for a very long time, and that is why we have long had the consanguinity rules regarding marriage (you can't marry cousin, etc.) The extension of this thinking to the present point is such obvious foolishness that we should all be ashamed of ourselves, but in fact we are going to experience something much more severe than shame, namely annihilation.
An all-time classic for outreach. I've showed this to apolitical people like my nice-as-pie churchwarden mum, and they've found little to disagree with.
Purposely calm and reasonable articles like this - and you're very good yourself, Sarah, at writing like that - have a key role in awakening people and giving them the terms and references to understand and discuss the vague 'thing' they're so concerned about: our dispossession.
What is wrong with you people?
Uniformity as a virtue? Ignorance is bliss, but only if everyone is uniformly ignorant? Dr.D has constructed a strawman that a 7 year old would laugh at. This is surely a parody site a la The Banner of Songun?
Do your mammies know you're on the internet?
@Enda
You really don't say anything at all to justify diversity. All you do is to call names, a typical Leftist response. This is easy to understand because you have no real argument, only bluster.
Only a fool would try to convince anyone that the inherent strife and constant conflict brought by diversity is preferable to the peace and harmony of living in a homogeneous group. A group of like minded people, coming from a common background and heritage, with a common religion and culture, with common goals, has a far greater chance of living at peace within itself than a diverse group.
Or perhaps this is too difficult for your muddled mind to understand? If so, I am not too surprised. Once people begin to drink the Kool-Aid, the effects seem to be terrible and permanent. Sanity is never recovered. Please just go be diverse some place else, say in the Congo. They need diversity there in the worst way.
"What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None."
I agree wholeheartedly. Why couldn't you Americans have left those poor Native Americans alone? What a beautiful place their country might still be without your bigoted, anachronistic views on a society of "peace and harmony, living in a homogeneous group". Homogeneous, meaning coming from England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Poland, i.e. parts of Europe where people look the 'right' colour.
A very well written article, clearly by an educated, intelligent, individual. It somehow seems more of a shame when racial ignorance dilutes a mind of potential.
An equally intelligent yet racist individual might feel the motivation to reply with a seemingly sound response to the hypocracy seen in dreams of racial purity, in a country founded through racial diversity. A response would however only be enjoyed by the writer, and their supporters. I of course will not be returning to website of this nature.
Post a Comment