Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Revisionist history hogwash. The peaceful, welcoming, harmonious Native American is liberal revisionist history. The real history is that Native Americans stole resources from other tribes, kept each other as slaves, and warred incessantly against each other.
To not believe that diversity by its own right will destroy a culture is a falsehood and a paranoid delusion. Diversity in age, gender, race, sexual orientation - all fine. Diversity in culture? Does not work. People of different cultures can certainly be friends and allies. People of different cultures cannot form a single society. Human beings have evolved as a social species. They must work together as a community to survive. The image of all sorts of people of different beliefs living and working together is leftist fantasy. There is not a single example of that working ever. People can only coexist within the same community if they share common bonds.
Not true at all. An example is my ancestors. I come from the six nation Iroquois Confederacy.
Historical Fact= The Iroquois Confederacy is the oldest continuous, working Democracy on the planet. Your constitution is a cut and paste of our "Great Law of Governance". It was our Great Law of the 6 tribes that is the foundation your founding fathers used as a template to cement the individual states together into one nation. You call it "The Constitution". Our tribal chiefs were invited to participate in the first Continental Congress to provide input into the formation of your new system of government. That's a fact.........look it up.
Yes, we warred against each other to a much lesser degree before the euros came. Border skirmishes were not unusual. Woman stealing, and resource grabbing were not uncommon. And yes, there were some long standing hatreds that were settled by mass killings but very very few, prior to the Euros. Before the Euros, we mostly bashed each other in the head with stone axes. Our favorite method of war was to "count coup". Since we only had stone axes, we would march up to the enemy, outfight him and place our hand on his forehead and say "You are defeated". The loser was so shamed he would immediately leave the battlefield and go home to cry in his mothers arms. Our warfare was very stylized rather than rampant killing like the euros practiced for hundreds of years.
Were the euros much better towards each other back in their own lands?:.......I think not.......
The real battles between tribes came when the euros gave us weapons of mass destruction and pushed us West into other tribe's territories. Then we competed for limited space and resources and the real killing started.
The myth of constant Indian on Indian slaughter is a cover designed by the white man to paint us all as worthless savages needing extinction and to cover up the fact that extinction is exactly what you proceeded to do, under the heading, "Manifest Destiny". It was during this period of mass slaughter of the Indians that the term "Redskin" was coined. Another attempt at branding us worthless savages.
So your whole response to my post is full of crap and nothing more than White, revisionist history.............with all due respect.
Regardless, in simplest terms "Diversity is division". Or really, "differences create division". Even something as simple as hair color can create division.
Diversity is a fact of life. What's important is how we respond to this fact of life. If we response out of ignorance and bigotry, then diversity will provide potential "us verses them" battle lines, and violence can occur. If someone adopts a sour attitude toward diversity, then they can find themselves in a loop of self-fulfilling prophecy, and thus they will say "See, I told you diversity is a cause of aggression." But to get this self-fulfilling prophecy going, the seed crystals of ignorance and bigotry are first required.
In reality, it is not diversity, as such, that creates the hatred and battle lines. It is ignorance and "groupthink" that picks harmless differences and turns them into excuses for aggression. If people are taught to recognize and appreciate the inherent strength of diversity, there is less inclination to respond aggressively to random differences. No fancy footwork is needed in order for the inherent benefits of diversity to arise. All that is needed is simple acceptance of the fact of diversity, and some realistic appreciation for the potential benefits. Simply allow diversity to do its natural work in peace, and it will inevitably manifest thriving energy - forms of mental and emotional variety that keep individuals and societies strong and growing.
An appreciation for diversity is somewhat comparable to a body's natural healing properties. If you don't keep poisoning the system, the body will naturally tend to heal random damage that occurs, and this is essential to long-term vibrancy. Celebrating diversity is like cultivating a positive outlook on life and maintaining an attitude of gratefulness. This approach allows the body to heal and thrive. This is the natural strength of diversity; it works if we let it do its work. But ignorance and grumpiness about the reality of diversity acts like a poison in the system. An inherent natural strength is mistaken for a sort of enemy, and health goes downhill.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-17-2015 at 11:42 AM..
“Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen — written in blood — from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word.â€
-Thomas Sowell
Your example is absolutely NOT DIVERSITY in any way. Those problems you cite are mainly caused by a lack of diversity combined with tribalism and religious fanaticism.
For centuries my ancestors in Scotland fought each other constantly. A result mainly of tribalism and of course the old Catholic vs. the Protestant thing.
It is often said that there is strength in diversity. This is a very general statement that can be applied in a great many realms of life. What, generally speaking, are your feelings about it?
The idea most commonly comes up in political contexts concerning cultural diversity, racial diversity, religious diversity and, lately, we've seen it applied in the broadest sense of lifestyle diversity (e.g., LGBTQ, polyamory, gay marriage...). In these contexts, is "strength in diversity" generally true?
Assuming that there are some cases where "strength in diversity" is true, and other cases where it might not be, I'd really like to get a deep understanding of exactly why there is strength in diversity (when it's true) and why, in other cases, diversity might do more harm than good.
Are there underlying principles at work that might help us to generally predict the effects of diversity in various kinds of situations?
Wrong...
United we stand, DIVIDED we fall.
Diversity and multiculturalism does not promote strength. It promotes division as each group pits against the other for favoritism against perceived discrimination.
HappyTexan"And it seems to be working well here in America."
Record DJ, an oversized economy for many decades (far higher % world GDP than world pop), I sure hope it keeps working as it has.
The anti diversity folks grandparents were no doubt the 5 points NYC Irish beating up Italians, Italians beating up Polish, Polish beating up Germans, etc.
Stupidly, they think they invented disliking diversity (after their immigrant ancestors diversified the USA, of course).
Your example is absolutely NOT DIVERSITY in any way. Those problems you cite are mainly caused by a lack of diversity combined with tribalism and religious fanaticism.
False, those problems are caused because different cultures tend to dislike each other. We should work to reduce that. We should not import "diverse" individuals whose culture is diametrically opposed to the main culture in large numbers. That is the lesson France should be teaching us.
This debate is once again between conservatives who see the world as it is and liberals who see the world as they wish it to be. We should all work for a better world but we cannot ignore reality. Liberals remind me of Jack Nicholson as President of the US in "Mars Attacks". Them Martians just never responded as they should have.
HappyTexan"And it seems to be working well here in America."
Record DJ, an oversized economy for many decades (far higher % world GDP than world pop), I sure hope it keeps working as it has.
The anti diversity folks grandparents were no doubt the 5 points NYC Irish beating up Italians, Italians beating up Polish, Polish beating up Germans, etc.
Stupidly, they think they invented disliking diversity (after their immigrant ancestors diversified the USA, of course).
As long as the almighty dollar stands tall you don't seem to care what happens.
Diversity is a fact of life. What's important is how we respond to this fact of life. If we response out of ignorance and bigotry, then diversity will provide potential "us verses them" battle lines, and violence can occur. If someone adopts a sour attitude toward diversity, then they can find themselves in a loop of self-fulfilling prophecy, and thus they will say "See, I told you diversity is a cause of aggression." But to get this self-fulfilling prophecy going, the seed crystals of ignorance and bigotry are first required.
In reality, it is not diversity, as such, that creates the hatred and battle lines. It is ignorance and "groupthink" that picks harmless differences and turns them into excuses for aggression. If people are taught to recognize and appreciate the inherent strength of diversity, there is less inclination to respond aggressively to random differences. No fancy footwork is needed in order for the inherent benefits of diversity to arise. All that is needed is simple acceptance of the fact of diversity, and some realistic appreciation for the potential benefits. Simply allow diversity to do its natural work in peace, and it will inevitably manifest thriving energy - forms of mental and emotional variety that keep individuals and societies strong and growing.
An appreciation for diversity is somewhat comparable to a body's natural healing properties. If you don't keep poisoning the system, the body will naturally tend to heal random damage that occurs, and this is essential to long-term vibrancy. Celebrating diversity is like cultivating a positive outlook on life and maintaining an attitude of gratefulness. This approach allows the body to heal and thrive. This is the natural strength of diversity; it works if we let it do its work. But ignorance and grumpiness about the reality of diversity acts like a poison in the system. An inherent natural strength is mistaken for a sort of enemy, and health goes downhill.
Much of this country refuses to accept gun ownership. It continues to plan against suburban lifestyles in city planning policies. It gets shocked when an asian culture eats dogs. It keeps coercing people into paying more to the government. Seriously, I see way way way too many examples of anti diversity thinking and policies, many of which actually stem from the political left. The problem is that diversity advocates simply do not recognize their anti diversity behaviors and mind sets. They act like self appointed authority figures, whose own behavior is already exempt from scrutiny. This is the inability to cultivate a sense of fairness and respect for differing opinions and opposing lifestyles.
It is often said that there is strength in diversity. This is a very general statement that can be applied in a great many realms of life. What, generally speaking, are your feelings about it?
The idea most commonly comes up in political contexts concerning cultural diversity, racial diversity, religious diversity and, lately, we've seen it applied in the broadest sense of lifestyle diversity (e.g., LGBTQ, polyamory, gay marriage...). In these contexts, is "strength in diversity" generally true?
Assuming that there are some cases where "strength in diversity" is true, and other cases where it might not be, I'd really like to get a deep understanding of exactly why there is strength in diversity (when it's true) and why, in other cases, diversity might do more harm than good.
Are there underlying principles at work that might help us to generally predict the effects of diversity in various kinds of situations?
Diversity of ideas is desirable, unfortunately social justice does not undestand diversity comes from idividuals not demographic categories they are trying to promote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
