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...........
What I always wanted to ask people who spout platitudes such as "diversity is our strength" about this scenario:
Say you want a new car prototype designed and built. You have two choices of teams. One team is all Japanese/white/black/hispanic/etc men but they have all sorts of degrees and skills such as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, metal working, etc. The second team has whites, blacks, hispanics, Asians, women, homosexuals, transgenders, and a Muslim. The people in the second group all have IQ's below 100.
Which group are you going to choose to maximize your chances of building a working car?
Yes, diversity certainly can be synonymous with mediocrity. Sometimes, however, different perspectives can be useful. But usually those different perspectives, IF VALUABLE, arise form different JOB-RELATED experiences, not just different life environments.
Diversity is a tool that the lest uses to pit certain groups against each other.
I like your thinking, Diversity is a lot like the doctrine of both Islamist and Communist...divide and conquer.
Keep up the good work. We need to bring a lot more light to the discussion and it is obvious also that MLK was an extremely effective tool of the Left and their Communist masters!
Modern diversity, as promoted by the libs, is when everyone looks different but thinks the same (hint: like a liberal).
There is a great counter-argument to "diversity".
"Warrior diversity".
Most people and nations can take pride in that at some point in history, they had a proud warrior tradition. And when you mention this, it kills "diversity" dead.
The reason is, that "diversity" is both racist and belittling.
Those who preach "diversity" do so from the position that *their* race is "better", as being from that race, they can offer "diversity" to lesser races. Other races would never think of anything as superior as "diversity".
It is like a morality tale crafted in Hollywood, which is based on the incorrect assumption that those who create the morality tale are morally superior to those they are preaching it to. Hollywood morally superior? Hah.
But you cannot fake being a warrior. Even if one side is armed with guns, and the other with spears, being a warrior means that you stand up with honor, and fight out of duty, even if you lose.
And in honor and in duty, you *are* equal. Win or lose, if you stand your ground, you are honorable warriors.
Which is why the preachers of "diversity" hate it. Because *they* are not warriors. They are decidedly inferior to warriors. They would not stand their ground, they have no honor and respect no duty.
And they know it. And this is why they are always on the look out for "downtrodden peoples" and "underdogs". So they can find someone they can feel superior to. Someone they hope will beg them for help, which they can parcel out in exchange for being told how superior they are.
Warriors don't beg. And they generally don't suffer fools with inferiority complexes who demand to be admired as superior.
So yes, the next time someone mentions "diversity", be sure to mention "warrior diversity". See how quickly it shuts them up.
I am developing the same thought with:
"Melting Pot to Sorting Bin, How the left has used the tactics of multiculturalism to steal the American dream from those who need it most".
ON college campuses, diversity is a political ploy to allow the unqualified to receive the same promotion, consideration, and rewards as those people who earn their way. It is as phony as the day is long, but has become an effective political sledgehammer for the driveling of the PC crowd.
Diversity is now my most hated word in the English language.
Best definition I've seen.
Same here - except that it runs a close second to "tolerance."
You almost got it right. I work in manufacturing, and here's how it works:
You have a small team of talent that gets the job done--engineers in a variety of disciplines like mechanical, electrical, software engineering. Those people and a handful of technical and clerical folks make up about 10-20% of your company.
The other 80-90% are, at best, paycheck-gatherers. If you're lucky they don't burden the talent too badly. This is the group you put your "diversity hires" in. You pay them at the low end of the scale and, if you're smart, consume their time with helpful tasks that don't tax the talent. If you're dumb, you allow them to engage in activities that distract the talent and affect the bottom line.
It's a microcosm of real life--you have a small group of producers and a large group of non-producers that depend on the former group for survival (but don't tell them that unless you're wearing asbestos underwear).
When I went to University "diversity" meant simply - not White, not male, not heterosexual, not Christian, etc. It is basically a codified system of repression for normal folks. "Down with the fascist Establishment Patriarchy" must sound a little too dated these days.
Diversity is from the Latin meaning, DI -bend over, VERSITY - White Man.
....But usually those different perspectives, IF VALUABLE, arise form different JOB-RELATED experiences, not just different life environments.
However you are using logic - or as the lefties say "You're thinking linearly"(is that phrase still used?).
What you are seeing with the re-definition of diversity is a deliberate corruption of the language. Consistent with Gramsciian Marxism.
Just remember that "diversity" is:
Celebrating that people are different,
while pretending not to notice any such differences.
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.