Diversity-speak as "happy talk"

Is Racial Diversity Good for Canada?

by Jared Taylor

http://www.amren.com/0702issue/dalhousie.html

C'mon Kathy, what about all the great Chinese food?

Interestingly, "Diversity" is not considered "Divisive" :-)

Diversity is modernity's silicone breast implant; they look great, but don't feel quite right when you try to put your hands around them.

Well, I'm not sure what breast implants you've been testing, but I can assure you .....

"Diversity" in nature is a matter of competition and capitalization on specialization or preying on weakness...it is constantly evolving in nature "diversity" is closely linked with extinction and emergence as the diversity dynamic is constantly in flux.

"Diversity" In the Human realm has been a matter of regional specialization and capitalization on genetic skill and adaptations to locale.

"Diversity" is therefore a product of natural selection and as a social construct has no inherent value save what is assigned to it by political dogmatism.

From my personal experince the cult of "diversity" celebrate diversity in everything except opinion where they seek a morbid uniformity.

"Diversity" is not something that should be either encouraged or discouraged. Diversity is increasingly the reality of our world - and our world is getting smaller.

This country was built on immigration and we will need much more immigration in the future if we hope to maintain our appetite for growth and prosperity. We all need to get along, and accepting each others differences (or our "diversity") is one of the pillars of a free and democratic society.

And by "accepting" I do not mean we must adopt those differences ourselves, or even support them. But let's at least recognize the differences, and grant the same respect we would hope for ourselves.

Quite right, Andrew. Celebrating diversity is akin to celebrating fog along the Atlantic Coast. This does not mean, however, that ours is not essentially a Western society (normally the only kind that really appreciates diversity). Nor does it mean that we should not consciously seek to assimilate new immigrants into our society and its traditions.

Finally, while it is true that Canada will be dependent on continued immigration, we should consider, as Quebec has done, finding ways to promote population replacement by encouraging larger families domestically.

"This country was built on immigration..."

Yawn. Yep, and it may now destroy it. It's called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Do not base your immigration policy on a bad poem written on an ugly French statue.

Don't you mean we need to maintain a tax base to keep providing gov't entitlements? Why not just eliminate the entitlements and reduce the need for immigration at the same time?

Diversity is a great concept if it refers to a diversity of ideas and approaches, that in turn gives us a dynamic and innovative society.

But of course that's not what people mean. It's a diversity of skin colour, which means absolutely nothing at all. In fact, to assume that a different skin colour gives us diversity is to claim skin colour makes one different, which isn't too far off from what a racist would say.

Together with the concept of divisiveness, it seems what the Toronto Star crowd wishes for our country is a land where everyone looks different but thinks the same: a colourful group-think.

Diversity = Divided

Divided we fall

"Don't you mean we need to maintain a tax base to keep providing gov't entitlements? Why not just eliminate the entitlements and reduce the need for immigration at the same time?"

Actually, no Kathy, that's not what I mean. I didn't mention anything about "entitlements".

In my opinion, closing our borders to immigration would do little to address many of the "diversity" concerns mentioned above. We have diversity issues within our borders that have nothing to do with immigration. The point I was attempting to make was that we need to figure out how to live in this environment, and from my perspective the best way to do that is to learn how to be tolerant of each others differences. This situation is not going away folks.

andrew keys - I disagree with your view that we must grant respect to cultural differences.

Should we respect a belief system that says that a woman may not be educated, that she is the property of the man; that she may not marry according to her wishes but only to someone in a particular family/clan - selected for her by her family? Do you agree with Sharia Law? Do you think that we should respect stoning a woman to death for being raped?

Cultural beliefts and behaviour are NOT equally valid or worthy of respect. Cultural beliefs and behaviour are the direct result of socioeconomic and political systems. These economic systems may be non-industrial; they may be peasant agricultural systems - and the beliefs in peasant economies are based around kinship links. Kin based societies or groups are exclusive; they reject collaboration with others; they reject internal questions; they are faith-based and reject change.

An industrial economy doesn't and cannot operate that way. Do you think that people should retain the beliefs and behaviour that are only functional in an outdated economic mode?

This has always struck me as a bit odd. Do I have a problem with a diverse society? Of course not. I'm a great fan of the melting pot. But why is it better than a homogeneous society? Why are we told that we must promote diversity, that it is something we have to strive for? "We have to attract more students of multicultural origin," the student government here at the University of Wyoming says. Why? Is it simply because these (mostly white) students have been taught that other cultures are better than theirs? I'm reminded of articles I've been reading in the Telegraph lately, which point to the fact that white secondary school students in the UK are often hard-pressed to name or describe their own culture, and feel inferior to their "diverse" classmates. Is this the fate of the next American generation as well?

"The fact is, most Americans value diversity - but they see it as a benefit with the potential cost of cultural disunity and social instability."

Well, then, most Americans aren't entirely sold on diversity. Is it me or is this study/article a meaningless fluff piece?

We all need to get along, and accepting each others differences....

All differences, Andrew? I'm sure not going to accept Sharia law or a slob that thinks terrorism is a justifiable means to an end in my community. I sure don't want a nation within our nation set up here, like Quebec, that refuses to accept English as our common language with the potential to act as a divisive entity. I sure don't want immigrants that don't value education, and there are groups that don't, adding to my kid's tax burden.

You seems to imply that sovereign nations are generic borderless land masses where anything must be accepted and endured.

As Kathy pointed out, maybe if some of the entitlements were reduced, the burden of shoring up the entitled with any warm body wouldn't be needed.

No Penny, not "all differences". I would expect all Canadians to respect our laws. I didn't think I'd have to spell this out, but stoning women, blowing up buildings, and beheading Prime Ministers is not allowed.

Besides the fact that its become an unexamined truism, why is it now a given that we should "tolerate differences"?

What if I don't feel like tolerating differences? What differences and what is tolerance? Never criticizing anything?

Here's an anecdote. A friend rented a condo owned by a family originally from India. There only rule was that he couldn't cook in the apt. Why? Because the were disgusted by the smell of white people's food. :-)

Leaving aside their right to make rules regarding their own property: Is it "OK" for them to say that out loud? If I said something similar, would I be a "racist"? If I criticized them for saying that would I be "insensitive"?

Kathy, first of all I'm not so convinced it has become "an unexamined truism", as evidenced by this discussion and countless books and articles on the subject.

Secondly, I'm not telling anyone they must tolerate anything. Let's just call it a tip.

I cherish the freedom we have in this country, and that includes your freedom to complain about the smell of someone's cooking - if you must.

Some people think spitting on the sidewalk is a great idea; others think it is disgusting. This is diversity.

andrew - the difference between 'telling someone' to do something and 'offering a tip' is that the former is simple-authoritarianism and the latter is smug-patronizing-authoritarianism. Both of them assume that the speaker (you) Knows What's Best.

You have failed to recognize that 'tolerating each other's differences' and 'granting differences respect' must go beyond your empty rhetoric. Precisely how, andrew, would you actually carry out these high-minded words?

You mention that immigrants must 'respect our laws'. But - what if our laws contradict their own beliefs? Don't you see how vapid and sanctimonious your words are - they are empty. How would you resolve the differences between respecting our laws IF our laws were absolutely counter to the beliefs of the immigrants? You've already declared that we must tolerate and respect their beliefs. HOW?

Your examples (behead the PM) are vapid; how about insisting that women be veiled during voting for elections or taking a driving test. How about insisting that Sharia law be accepted. How about allowing a man to have four wives. How about arranged marriages. How about insisting that the banks stop handing out piggy banks? How about stopping freedom of the press (the cartoons).

Good news Richard. The Chi-Coms are forcing their commrades to stop spitting and doing other disgusting, unsanitary, filthy things in public to get ready for the Olympics.

Alas, we'll never have a similar campaign here in SARS-struck Toronto and our 3 different Chinatowns. Cuz its all part of diverse, magical Chinese culture!

Andrew Keyes says: "I cherish the freedom we have in this country"

Really?

Stephen Harper recently appointed Konrad W. von Finckenstein as head of the CRTC. Do you know what the CRTC is?

Among other things the CRTC regulates what you can and can't say on TV, radio, and, to a degree, the internet.

Do you know who Konrad W. von Finckenstein is, Andrew? Well, he used to be a judge, and shortly before becoming CRTC chief von Finckenstein sent a man to jail for 3 months for criticizing multiculturalism on the internet.

Even Castro doesn't do that. China certainly doesn't do that, and neither does Russia.

I hate to break it to you, but in several important aspects you are less free than a Chinese citizen or a Cuban citizen. You're just too brainwashed to notice.

ET, I think you're misrepresenting my views. As I've clearly stated, I do expect our laws to be respected first and foremost. Outside of these "constraints" there is certainly plenty of room for "diversity" in our society. I am not promoting diversity, I am simply stating that it is here to stay and we should deal with it.

So in answer to your questions I would say that "our laws" trump "their beliefs". Are these words "vapid", "sanctimonious", and "empty" ET? In this land there is no law that I'm aware of that places Sharia law above Canadian laws, banks are free to give out "piggy banks" if they wish, and our press is free to publish pictures of Mohammed if they feel the need to. "Marriage" is a relationship between consenting adults, so if they are okay having it "arranged" for them, who am I to interfere?

I expect that as our society evolves we'll see new laws introduced that will reflect the changing priorities of our population - that's democracy. Some changes will be supported and some will be opposed, but once we have made them law they should then be respected.

It is no surprise that those who take the word diversity and attach a value to it are too stupid to be able to explain what the value is!