We continue to view current issues & mind-sets from different perspectives; to explore the context of contemporary opinion from facets both of perception & function--both with respect to the pursuit of truth & with respect to understanding ulterior purpose--whether reason or compulsion driven--of those who are not truth seekers. We have dealt with a Leftist preoccupation with "diversity" in many essays. Some have dealt with immigration, some with totalitarian tendencies to suppress freedom; some with the destruction of community identification--whether by location, ethnicity, lines of descent or common history. But an effort to tie them all together, here as reflected in usage of the not always understood 'buzz-word' "diversity," in today's Western social milieu, is the intent.
To rational and reasonably educated men & women, an awareness of diversity in Creation--and of the diversity of a small human niche in that Creation--do not mandate more than a certain fascination, coupled, as wisdom grows, with a measure of humility. There is nothing in the complexity of Nature to inspire or compel a change in one's traditional culture, personal goals or priorities. Indeed, cultural values tend to reflect centuries of interaction with natural phenomena; while courtesy to strangers--absent a reason to act otherwise--has generally held an honored place in the cultures of the rational & educated.
There are, however, two recognizable human mind-sets, which clearly do not view human diversity with such equanimity. Both clearly reflect aspects of what we refer to below as "A Compulsion For Uniformity." Yet, while they may sometimes overlap, the approaches may be diametrically opposed. The group representing the less subtle mind-set, would be those who openly seek to impose a particular ideology on others. Before the growth of the great totalitarian movements of the 20th Century, such effort might have been limited to suppression of religious diversity or dissent.
The other branch of those with compulsion driven response to human diversity, treat "diversity" verbally, not as a fact but as a goal; yet pursue policies which tend not to protect actual diversity but--at least so far as Western peoples are concerned--to undermine it. To what extent this is intentional depends upon the complex motivations of individual players--themselves ideologically diverse. To distinguish between those who pursue these policies, on the basis of whom is individually compulsion driven & whom merely misled, or opportunistic, is not always easy. But that we witness, at the very least, a serious threat, diminishing the extent of actual human diversity, is undeniable. Or how else can one explain the demonstrable effects of the more aggressive manifestations?
We treated some of the effects, from a mid-Twentieth Century push for more extensive racial integration in public education in the United States, in Chapter 5 of the Conservative Debate Handbook. But the focus there was primarily on education; on the resulting injury to the development & ongoing prospects of minority students being sacrificed for integrationist purposes. We also discussed the confused egalitarian/environmentalism behind the "Civil Rights" movement--and the pretenses that underlie it--which have led to very deleterious influences on behavior among all ethnic or racial groups afflicted. What more can, or need, be said about frequent calls for greater acceptance of school or neighborhood integration, under the umbrella of promoting "diversity?"
To the extent that such educational or housing policies achieve a truer social integration of diverse groups, diversity is diminished. So, too, the comfort level of those in any group, who do not want to be forced, or even pressured, to adjust social habits or tastes to meet an artificial norm, dictated by social theorists. But that is only one facet of the point.
We have presented the Conservative argument against Third World immigration--indeed against large scale immigration, in general--in essays directed to those specific issues. Yet to focus specifically on "diversity," why would anyone pretending to respect human "diversity," deliberately promote such immigration in its name? To the extent the promotion succeeds, there will of course be major problems--as people adjust to immediate aspects of the new "diversity." But those problems can only be lessened, if at all, by effectively diminishing the actual diversity between those artificially brought together.
American television dramas and sit-coms display an ever greater degree of close personal interaction, on a more frequent basis, among diverse ethnic & racial types, than is actually the situation in most regions of the sub-continent. A facet of this same observable phenomenon, has been projection of a high percentage of the less intellectually successful minorities in key cerebral roles in such "entertainment" vehicles--whether as keys to effective law enforcement, medicine, scientific innovation, or general problem solving. Does this actually celebrate "diversity" or seek to trivialize it--to make it seem to go away?
None of this has anything, whatsoever, to do with promoting good-will or tolerance. Toleration does not depend on undermining differences, but rather in accepting them. Nor, certainly, does either tolerance or good-will require forced association or calculated schemes to undermine the homogeneity of neighborhoods or communities. Rather, quite the opposite. On the other hand, traditional American foreign policy--the Washington/Jefferson policy--which treated all peoples with respect (but not delusion) & required respect in return, embodied the very essence of true tolerance. Contemporary efforts of fatuous American political leaders, seeking to force a particular egalitarian ideology on others while attacking all ethnic preferences at home, embody the absolute antithesis to tolerance.
As for good-will between peoples? Surely such must be based upon respect--genuine respect. Is there anything less conducive to genuine respect than forced or contrived association? Quotas or "Affirmative Action?" Is there anything less conducive to the future of a nation, race or civilization, than a "politically correct" mind-set that makes people uncomfortable with celebrating their own unique heritage; honoring their own unique lines of descent; or even thinking in terms of their continuity as a people? Yet is not this precisely what self-anointed apostles of a dogma that proclaims human "diversity"--not as a reality of nature, but as a goal sought to replace the homogeneous community--have accomplished in undermining traditional identification in major segments of the contemporary Western world? Is this paradox or something else?
The public have become so accustomed to an involuted & inherently contradictory use of terms, both in America & Western Europe, that some may have trouble even perceiving the seeming paradoxes, we will discuss. If so, we beg the reader's indulgence. Take a deep breath & set aside the stereotypical reactions, to which we have all been endlessly conditioned by a popular media, academic pundits and public sycophants. This should not be necessary for our regular readers.
A blatant example of the incongruous response, among those actively seeking to promote "diversity" as a goal or immediate condition, may be observed in reactions to ethnic humor in America today. While false & unkind characterizations have never been consistent with the reciprocal respect, advocated by America's Fathers, it is neither fair nor reasonable to lump gentle humor into that category. Ethnic humor has provided a way to ease tensions between peoples living in close proximity--even with respect to conflicting interests between peoples--throughout human history. And while not subject to precise verbal definition, differences between the malicious & harmless are not hard to recognize--absent an element of compulsion or neurosis preventing the operation of objective intelligence.
One would think that those who embrace "diversity" as a positive virtue, would welcome the ethnic humor by which the diverse often identify themselves, or seek to distinguish themselves from others. But the exact opposite is the case. The "diversity" seekers even run media advertisements, encouraging people to insult anyone who dares to make an ethnic quip in a social gathering of his or her own set. They have also sought to purge the airways of those who have, from time to time, suggested that relative success or failure in any endeavor might reflect inherited ethnic traits or selective breeding. This hardly celebrates actual diversity.
Of course, the would-be thought police are willing to make exceptions, when targets of ethnic humor are of the original European stocks, which produced America's Founding Fathers & our fundamental institutions. Or consider the treatment of White American youth, who display the American flag at some multi-cultured California schools! Such phenomena suggest that those who talk the most about human "diversity," mean something other than reference to the actual diversity of Mankind.
Consider racial patterns in school attendance--or housing--even of membership in private clubs. Why, if "diversity" is a goal, may not the diverse choose to reinforce the diversity of their nature by associating with those who most closely share that nature? We do not urge hostility to any people, nor disrespect for the persons or property of any race. We refer simply to acts of personal preference--acts that reinforce, rather than undermine, distinct attributes of the diverse. Are we alone in observing that some, who talk the most about "diversity," almost froth at the mouth as they hurl invective at others, who choose to associate largely with those who share a common heritage?
Then there is the seeming paradox in contemporary education, which focuses more on those who attack the traditional ethnic values of the Founding Fathers, than on those American Fathers' achievements. It is noteworthy that the region of early America, which receives the least sympathetic treatment, is the Old South--whose people have been more successful than others in maintaining their actual diversity! Obviously, some pursuers of "diversity" are selective in what diversity they value--or even tolerate!
Consider what the pursuit of "diversity" has meant to freedom of religion. After two generations of very selective litigation, the ACLU and its Leftist allies have created a situation where one dissenter can prevent a whole community of like-minded believers from engaging in public, community-wide, celebrations of Faith. Does that show respect for actual diversity in religious belief, or does it suppress manifestations of same--the importance of that diversity? To like effect is legislation that prevents religious preferences in private employment or housing. Yet, almost to a man or woman, the same activist groups that attack such celebrations & preferences, embrace "diversity" as an essential goal.
Perhaps the best illustration of such seeming paradox, that actually illustrated something very different, was in the attitude of those, who cannot get enough "diversity" today, towards White South Africans, in the years between 1948 & 1994. The ethnic diversity in South Africa--clearly a 'First World' nation before 1994--was almost certainly greater than that in any other Western nation during the period. Moreover, that diversity was not only ethnic & racial, but social & cultural to an extent well beyond that found in other Western homelands.
The popular myth was that South Africa was one nation; that the racial issue involved a White minority suppressing a large "Black" majority for the minority race's benefit; that the 'Apartheid' policy of the governing National Party was intended to rationalize the continuation of a colonial era exploitation of non-White peoples. The truth was precisely the opposite--both as to premises & intention:
1. The borders of South Africa, at the time 'Apartheid' was proposed, were not based upon any pattern of ethnic settlement, but upon territory administered by a British Colonial Government in 1910, when Dominion status was granted to White South Africans. 'Apartheid'--the Afrikaner term for separate development--was a plan to dismantle that Colonial legacy: to restore cultural integrity to each of the diverse ethnic components, found within the geographic confines of that former Colonial Administration. The principal opponents of separate development were businessmen with an attitude very similar to those in America, who oppose shutting down the flood of cheap labor over our Southern border; men devoted, not to a celebration of diversity, but to a continued supply of cheap labor. This was all grossly misrepresented, outside of South Africa, by Leftists with 'axes to grind.' Yet because of that business opposition, 'Apartheid' was never fully implemented--despite those misrepresentations.
2. There was, in fact, no ethnic majority in South Africa--far from it! None of the diverse nations accounted for even 20% of the total population. One would have to artificially aggregate the three largest groups to even reach a bare majority. Taking the 1976 estimates, for example, there were 4,310,000 Whites--many descended from 17th Century settlers;--5,004,000 Zulus; 4,897,000 Xhosa; 2,426,000 Cape Coloured; 2,103,000 Tswana; 2,011,000 Sepedi; 1,627,000 Seshoeshoe; 814,000 Shangaan; 746,000 Asians; 590,000 Swazi; 449,000 Venda; 423,000 foreign workers; and 615,000 members of small tribes, quite distinct from any of the foregoing.
Each of these tribes--or nations--had its own language, customs, history, tribal government, even architecture; housing styles differing far more among those identified South African Bantu nations, than would be the case among any nations on the European continent. More significant, if respect for actual diversity were a positive value, would be differences between the settlement pattern of the White Afrikaner and that of any Bantu Nation. While the latter, regardless of those very different architectures, all tend to cluster housing tightly, much in the manner of a military encampment; Afrikaners tend to spread their houses as far apart as possible. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once observed that Afrikaners in the Transvaal felt crowded if they could even see the smoke from their neighbors' chimneys. This reflects an immense difference in patterns of social interaction, very evident to anyone driving around the South African countryside.
The natural question arises: Why in the name of "diversity," must people with very different histories, tastes, languages & philosophies, be expected to give up the unique achievements of centuries of separate development, simply because someone once drew a map, for external--Colonial purposes--in which their diverse homelands were combined? Giraffes do not become elephants because they use the same watering hole. Nor do they become elephants, when housed in something called an "Elephant House" in a Zoological Garden in Europe or America! Stated another way, from a yet quite different perspective, is there to be no place left on earth, as a cultural homeland, for the pioneer personality that, craving open spaces, led Western man into the largely unsettled interiors of both America & South Africa?
Never, in their diverse histories, did the varied tribes or ethnic nations of South Africa have a common ethnic identity. The only place, where many ever lived in a true multi-cultural community, were in Townships that grew out of transient, job-seekers', encampments around sources of employment, where a degree of detribalization took place. These Townships were often marked by high crime & promiscuity; the exceptions being where those with recognized tribal status were able to maintain tribal discipline. By contrast, the tribal homelands were comparatively crime free; notable for a pastoral lifestyle.
Again, what in the nature of human "diversity" required, or even recommended, the social or political integration of such diverse peoples? Clearly, the international demands for change in South Africa did not reflect much respect for actual diversity.
It is difficult to explain any of the seeming paradoxes, touched upon above, without coming to the conclusion that there is a powerful element of pure hatred involved; implacable hatred against the very continuity of traditional Western European or American culture & ethnicity.
The pursuit of "diversity"--with "diversity" a code word for something else--has become a cause for a diverse array of contemporary folk, both here & in Western Europe. Some of these are compulsion driven, others motivated by fear of the compulsion driven; others by a variety of emotions, none of which involves any noble, rational or patriotic purpose. Yet regardless of the motives of any individual, the pursuit described undermines families, communities, nations, states & cultures. In breaking down patterns of personal identification--our ability to rally with others to preserve liberty & values--they render us all more susceptible to the potential for an international totalitarian tyranny; one that Marx, Lenin, Trotsky & Hitler, could have only envied. "Diversity," so applied, has become a vehicle for the "surrender by subterfuge," discussed in our March, 2012 Feature!
It is increasingly apparent that the greatest threat to the actual diversity of human nations, is the pursuit of "diversity" by those hostile to our future. Tragically, most Conservatives have yet to respond either with conviction or understanding.