Posted on 01/28/2007 5:52:08 AM PST by Nextrush
When one gets into this "diversity" thing, one has to ask what's it really all about?
Is it really about "being aware of and recognizing differences" or is it about something deeper than that?
"Diversity" is in and of itself a strange word, because it starts with the prefix "div," which of course occurs in other words like "divide," "division" and "divisive." Those words clearly imply a separation of things and of course in the case of "diversity," people.
Why do people have to be separated? Is it so they can be in conflict with each other?
Wouldn't it be better if people weren't always in conflict? Although I realize that's impossible in the world we live in, why are there official policies of "diversity" that appear to divide people?
"Diversity" is apparently the new way of saying "Civil Rights", "Affirmative Action" or "Equal Employment Opportunity."
That makes it appear that "diversity" just may be a new label for the same old policies of quotas and reverse discrimination. But this "diversity" thing appears to involve teaching and advocacy of a wider agenda that brings in homosexuals and other groups not included in the old "affirmative action" agenda.
This dividing of people reminds me of Marx and Engels who in formulating Communism in the middle of the 19th Century divided people into the "proletariat" of oppressed and the "bourgeosie" of the oppressors.
This economically based division of the world served Communism well in its early years but eventually it wore thin. Communism was reacted to with socialist half-way measures. In addition, the obvious brutality and economic failures turned many away from its dreams of a "glorious future."
The left (Communism) needed new ways to divide people and create conflict in society to bring about its kind of revolution. From its beginning, Communism was a movement that called for women to be "liberated."
Racial and ethnic differences kicked in during the 20th Century here in the United States as a means for the Communist Party (which was a large movement during the 1930's and 40's) to advance its agenda of creating the conditions for "revolution."
Herbert Philbrick was an adverstising executive who was recruited into the Communist Party in the 1940's. He went to the FBI and provided them with information while working in the Communist movement in the United States.
Many of the party leaders Philbrick worked under were in the modern vernacular "women" and "minorities."
Philbrick's story was published under the book title "I Led Three Lives" in 1950. In it, he describes how some were unwilling to follow black party leaders. Those leaders dubbed their enemies "white chauvinists." And in a footnote, Mr. Philbrick says that females called men who wouldn't be led by them "male chauvinists." (Of course that "male chauvinist" label would later be a cliche' of the feminist movement of the 1960's and 70's)
And its wasn't just divisions based on race and sex (gender in politically correct terms) that were being mobilized to create communist revolution in the United States.
Newsweek's Evan Thomas wrote a biography of Robert Kennedy which describes the then Attorney General's disdain for Dr. Martin Luther King's march on Washington in 1963.
Kennedy was telling friends to stay away from the event on the basis of FBI surveillance pointing to the Communists who surrounded Dr. King. According to Thomas, Bobby Kennedy described King associate Bayard Rustin as a "pink fairy." Not only was Kennedy calling him a left-winger (pink), he was also calling him a homosexual (fairy).
Comnmunist activists were black, female and gay. These same groups have all been identified as victims in the years that followed. Black, female and gay "leaders" have all stepped forward to demand "rights" be granted to them other than the ones given to all of us in the Constitution. Other groups have stepped in to demand "rights," too.
Since the 1960's, these differences have been used to fan the flames of conflict and create new laws that increase the power of government in general and the federal government in particular.
All in the name of what is now being called "diversity."
But there's more to this idea of "divide" (create conflict) and "conquer" (increase government power to control people) than theory.
The story of "diversity' is plays out in localities all over the country. It tries to ignite anger and conflict among everyday people like you and me.
More on that as the series continues...........
I wasn't actually trying to reflect any real manufacturing or R&D situation. It's just that the members of the Cult of Diversity seem to revere skin color and what you do to or with your genitals. I wanted to point out that those things really are irrelevant to accomplishing real goals such as building something. But, your team's diversity in education and training in the "useful arts" is quite beneficial, even if your team is, for example, all heterosexual Japanese men.
It's much more simple than you think. Diversity is a principle involving giving undeserved advantages to minorities in order to screw whites.
Whenever someone starts whining about "diversity", it means grab your wallet. There is nothing about earning anything with diversity. Minorities who have earned the things they have in life simply do it. They don't whine about "diversity". They put their clothes on every morning and go to work and work hard. They don't complain about the hand life dealt them, they make their choices and make the most of them.
People make their own way in life and they get what they earn. What some earn in life isn't fair compared to others. I don't have anything approaching John Edwards' 29,000 sq. ft., $6,000,000 home; but what I do have, I earned on my own efforts from the opportunities life presented me.
We all make our own way in life and life isn't always fair. When we start complaining about diversity, it means that we have stopped earning our way through life and have started to seek handouts and table scraps. Choices in life are what we make of them. Bad choices should not be an express ride to the front of the line.
Diversity has been brutally abused as a buzz-word, but I think it has value as a goal. Let me explain.
In most situations, whether it's a newsroom, a sales staff, a factory floor, a university campus or a coal mine, people work together better when they can quickly and immediately connect. The conversation benefits from having more voices. Do you think Coke and Pepsi are going to blow off advice on the tastes of black or Hispanic customers from someone who knows?
But there is a stark difference between REAL diversity and "affirmative action." AA has what I think is a reasonable goal, to give a leg up to folks who could use one, can take advantage of it, and can lift their families and communities. But the fatal flaw is that it's narrowly defined to women and ethnic minorities.
Georgia law requires preferential treatment for "minority contractors" in airport concessions, and the primary beneficiary of that policy has been the son of Maynard Jackson, Atlanta's mayor for eight years. Are you kidding me?By what rational measure is the black mayor's son unfairly advantaged compared to a hard-working white son of an Appalachian dirt farmer?
I applied to college as a white Southern high school newspaper editor who won state literary awards and played tuba in the all-state band and bass trombone in the all-state jazz band. I once hacked into my high school library's accounts, but only to extend books I hadn't finished yet. I was raised by a single mother who never made over $30K a year while I was in high school; she put herself through college while raising two kids and working full time.
Several measures of diversity there, and I think the tuba helped me most, because every band needs one and we're thin on the ground. But the more important point is that diversity runs along several axes, and "Affirmative Action" recognizes only a few.
I learned a lot in my college years, and in my professional life, from working with people whose backgrounds weren't like mine. Black and white; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, Rastafarian and Hindu; musicians and not; Urban, suburban and rural; Southern, Yankee and Westerner; and so on.
That sort of exposure is a worthwhile goal. But it can only be met by human judgment, not by quotas or point systems.
Diversity is the most effective tool ever devised for the advancement of the liberal left. In one fell swoop it: replaces merit in private enterprise; invalidates traditional values; transfers power to the administrators; neutralizes opposition; and effectively reigns in private choices.
I would say it's only rival is "political correctness," but in fact diversity is the embodiment, development and manifestation of the pc environment.
What is deversity?
It's like, when, you know, everyone thinks the same.
Strangely, Lee Harvey Oswald idolized Philbrick.
Not a very good scenario, IMO. If I'm a real businessman, I will carefully evaluate the individuals in both groups and select those I think will provide the best performance.
Race, IQ, and religion are poor metrics upon which to assess an individual's skill. And, unless I am looking for a new care prototype that appeals primarily to a given category of people, I want the best engineers I can get working on the project; not the best black engineers, or the smartest Hispanic engineers, or the friendliest muslim engineers. Just the best engineers.
The way I view it:
Diversity: Divides us as a nation
Similarities: Unites us as a nation
There were no legalized racial and ethnic differences in the United States prior to the 20th century? Really? What do you think legal segregation was?
The Communists didn't create racial differences in this country, they exploited them for their own ends. They used the second-class status of blacks to try to push Communism in this country.
That's the whole point of the scenario. Maybe I didn't write it clearly enough.
The multi-culti's focus on race, sexual proclivities, religion, gender, sex and other irrelevant attributes. My scenario was meant to point out that those things are irrelevant to the task of producing a car prototype. The factors that make a difference would be their skills, even if the group is not that "diverse" to a multi-culti leftist.
That's the point. What if the best engineers just happen to all be heterosexual Japanese men?
IQ is a poor metric? Do you really want someone with an IQ of 95 writing the software for your car's brakes?
Di more ve tolerate any behavior, di verse it gets.
Anyone really think that diversity has worked over the last 30 years? Go to any college campus of your choice, go where the students gather to eat lunch and watch their little groups divide up.
Diversity means "hey white boy I'm going to take your history and your wealth and give it away."
I had a feeling that's what you were up to.
I consider their behavior as the content of their character which MLK told us to judge people according to. They do not qualify as a discriminated minority since they have greater political pull than other groups, statistically have higher saleries, and don't have an immutable trait such as skin color.
I find the push to celebrate and take pride in a sexual deviant behavior as offensive. Corporations with these policies are in fact encouraging a destructive lifestyle. If statistics on general health and lifespan were honestly considered, smokers might look good compared to some of these groups.
I would prefer that the policies emphasize respect for the others and efforts to eliminate harrassment. We should emphasize unity in common goals. Instead, diversity divides as you have stated and only causes further problems and resentment when those divisions are taken into account when considering hiring or promotions.
Yes. As a sole factor for making a determination of who would design the best prototype vehicle, IQ is only one metric to be evaluated. I know of and have worked with many engineers who had high IQs and couldn't figure out how to design their way out of a paper bag. That doesn't mean they aren't smart, just that they are unable to make the transition from theory and hypotheses to practical application. Sometimes that skill is a benefit . . . . sometimes it isn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.