I thought about mentioning that. There is a big difference, though: India and the African nations were colonized by Europeans. That brought a measure of civilization, and its benefits, to these otherwise backward nations, even where it was imposed upon them. That’s far different than today’s brainless promotion of simple racial “diversity” as a magical recipe for success.
What made these colonies successful wasn’t a sudden injection of racial diversity, but rather imposition of Western principles and the order and productivity they bring. Since that era, India has managed a certain level of success with their own democracy (though their primitive culture still causes them many problems), but the former colonies in Africa went right back to being primitive, unproductive, crime-ridden, and corrupt.
I agree with your general point, though. If racial diversity is some magical power when applied by bringing more “people of color” into majority white nations, then it should work the same in reverse. But leftist diversity advocates never want to talk about that because they’re not really in favor of “diversity”, they really just want to eliminate white people and dominate the areas they inhabit. That’s also why you never see them concerned about the obvious lack of diversity in the NBA, and why they’re up in arms over Caitlin Clark bringing a tiny bit of “diversity” to the WNBA.
You are right, of course, and you wrote a good summary of the differences between injecting mainly white Western Civilization into backwards, primitive non-white countries and today’s mindless “diversity” goals. Thanks for expanding on that and the differences.
If “diversity” were good of its own sake, you’d think the leftists would at least make passing recognition to the benefits that colonialism and adding white diversity to the local populations brought to those backwards African nations.