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...........
So, how would a person with an IQ of 95 and no engineering degree, but with other "diversity" qualifications such as being a black homosexual transgender who understands gender theory be a benefit to the project?
How many good engineers do you know that have an IQ of 95?
I was with you until the "forbidding any white culture" part, that seems like a bit of an exaggeration. The established cutlure for the vast majority of this country is about as whitebread as you can get. Lord knows its tough out there for the white man!
Are you sure their replacement isn't having the government (them) tell everyone what to do, how to do it, and when to do it for every facet of their lives, including using the toilet?
Just because there are impractical, high-IQ engineers does not mean that low-IQ engineers might be any good. We have two dimensions here: IQ and practicality. Therefore, there are four combinations: smart and practical, smart and impractical, stupid and practical, and stupid and impractical. You want your car designed by only one of these, and [hint] he or she must have a high IQ.
And a Muslim?
Of course, you have to have muslims involved for true diversity.
If you think about it, a world of tribes isolated from one another may be the maximum of human diversity. The modern world's mixing of people together may look more diverse to people in any one place, but it's part of the world becoming more homogeneous and real diversity of groups disappearing.
That's certainly one way of looking at things, and it's very much in contrast to the fashionable creed of the day. Of course, you could argue that bringing different cultures together offers the possibility of new syntheses, hence more diversity, but it looks like the urban cultures of the world are melding into one lifestyle that doesn't differ from country to country and continent to continent as ways of life once did.
It looks like a wag got into Wikipedia's article on "diversity":
Diversity is the presence of a wide range of variation in the qualities or attributes under discussion. As well as an old, wooden ship used in the Civil War era.
Diversity is a form of battleship, speed boat, beliefs of victory. Amongst soilders, particularly in the Cival War, the term diversity refers to an old wooden ship used in the Civil War era*.
No idea if this is true or not, but it seems to be making the rounds of the Internet.
I have some quotes from a man involved in "diversity" that will confirm what you are saying. I will use them in a later post in this series.
The left discovered that race could be a vehicle for their purposes. Of course I don't blame segregation on them or any other racial policies that existed. The left found a means to create the conflict so they could create revolution.
Of course the changes that came as people changed their minds about race (not legal changes like civil rights laws) forced the left to move into new directions hence this new concept of "diversity" to rekindle the past conflicts that had quieted down.
I have worked with engineers across the spectrum. Many of those who might not be the sharpest knives in the drawer still bring something to the table. An engineer with a 95 IQ is still a desireable entity on a design team because, in the first place, the individual with the 95 IQ made it through engineering school. That speaks pretty highly of the engineer's ability alone.
I understand your point, but I think you aren't asking the right question. Would I want that individual with the 95 IQ to be the project engineer for the design project? Can't say - that's a case by case assessment. As far as no engineering degree, I also don't have any issues with that. I have known and worked with a few non-degreed engineers and many of them are equal to or exceed the abilities of several of the degreed engineers I have worked with. You keep trying to get me to agree with you based on IQ or diversity factors and, in the experience I have gained in my career, I haven't found it to be that black and white. That's why my primary metric is performance. Gender, race, IQ, religion, sexual preferences, hair/eye color, blood type are all distractions that take away from the goal.
I have made snap judgements before about people, making assessments on the basis of some sterotyped category only to be surprised by that individual later on in the project. Each of us is different and we all bring different things to an engineering project.
Let's just say that we'll agree to disagree on this point. I have listed my reasons in a follow-up response to Michigan Conservative.
I don't think we agree on the basic background assumptions of the scenario. I guess I just didn't write it clear enough.
This was my main point: Lots of leftists say "diversity is out strength", focusing primarily on skin color and, for instance, what you do with or to your penis. Well, if the task at hand is building a complicated device, what does that actually have to do with it and how does having a transgender necessarily make your team stronger?
I guess for some people you know certain penis-related pastimes might correlate with being a good engineer. But what did its penis-related pastime bring to the engineering problem at hand? I do not believe there exists a causal relationship between skin color or penis pastime and the ability to perform in any given situation.
Maybe "correlate" should be "coincide" there, champ.
I you don't like the IQ criteria, how about replacing that with "a group of people who 'look like America' and are also in a vegetative state". Isn't their "diversity" their strength? I mean, they've got blacks, whites, hispanics, homosexuals, men, women, children, oldsters, transgenders, Jews, muslims, buddhists, etc.
OK, I think this indicates my inability to express another important assumption. The second group does not necessarily have any engineering education, training, or experience. In fact, they should come from all walks of life so they better "look like America." One of them might have years of experience as a heroin addict living on the streets, seeing as that would make them even more likely to "look like America". But I guess there could be great engineers who spent years living on the streets as a junkie, so let's say he has an MFA and wanted to be an actor.
ROFL!!!!
NOW, you're in the ballpark!! THAT's the resume for the project engineer.
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.