03-25-19
Although the word diversity and divisive have different roots, they have
become synonymous in contemporary politics, since it is becoming clearer that
you can’t have the first one without also bringing about the second as a
result.
Liberals like to sell diversity has a kind of camp fire gathering in
which everybody gets to sit around and sing kumbaya.
But in Democratic politics, this largely resembles high school where
everybody must be part of some social clique or else, you're nobody.
Instead of just having potheads and diva jocks and rebels the left
divvies up the population into race and ethic clubs we refer to as diversity.
Unfortunately, these groups are often not as compatible as liberals
like to claim, blacks often dislike Asians because Asians are too smart and get
into all the colleges that are mostly open only to blacks through affirmative
actions, and some Latinos dislike blacks because Affirmative Action appears to have
been designed exclusively for blacks.
Many black groups are envious of Native Americans, who were awarded
reparations for the allegedly bad deals Native American made with whites – including
the sale of Manhattan and other scams Native Americans thought they were pulling
on White settlers only to find out later, the white settlers really did mean to
own the land they bought at bargain basement prices.
Not even all Latinos love each other. In fact, some groups of Puerto Ricans
don’t particularly like Mexicans, and some Mexicans don’t like those immigrants
migrating north from other parts of Central Americans. While Dominicans share an
island with Haitians, they are hardly on the best of terms, since Haitians are
well aware of just how better off for the most part Dominicans are – and how
much tourist trade goes to that part of the island and how little goes to
Haiti.
Cubans are a whole different situation since many of those who arrived in
the United States dislike Democrats for what JFK pulled the rug out from under
their counter revolution at the Bay of Pigs.
While Arabs are the new ethnic kid on the block, many liberals struggle
to distinguish between good Islam and the distorted variety that likes flying
air planes into tall buildings and creates shoes and underwear with bombs in
them.
But it is politically incorrect to mention the distorted variety since
anyone who does is clear Islamophobic – the new catch word used to discredit
critics along with calling people a racist, sexist or misogynic.
Antisemitism used to be included in this collection but has clearly
fallen out of fashion over the last few years.
The only thing many of these groups have in common is their dislike of
European whites, especially if they are male and conservative. They tend to tolerate
white liberals if the liberals wrote essays in college saying how ashamed they
are at being white, wealthy or successful.
If you are a white male liberal, castration is an option. This would
put you in good with the women’s groups, who clearly prefer their men that way.
While we've always had similar ethic divisions with each new wave of
immigration, the ultimate aim was eventual assimilation.
Irish Americans, German Americans, Italian Americans eventually put
their ethnic heritage in the background to become Americans.
In the current configuration, the opposite is true. this desperate need
to maintain ethnic identity explains why we get whacko leaders like AOC in NY
and antisemitic leaders like the one in Minnesota, and Waters in CA.
While groups like the LGBT community have made great strides in moving
in the mainstream with successes such as gaining same sex marriage even, they
seem to want to retain a separate identity as a group not assimilation. This is
particularly true of racial radicals who seem more dedicated to tearing down
the system rather than becoming part of a larger society.
Anyone who disagrees with the policies inflicted on the world by these
gets accused of being one of the already mentioned categories of mortal sins.
For any of the aforementioned groups (including those of gender), the
idea is to build personal identity by professing to be victims of oppression.
And since none of these groups wants to play the role of the oppressor,
they generously give this to white descendants of Europeans, who they can
accuse of any historic crime regardless of whether or not this particular
person or his (sic) ancestors were actually guilty of the so-said atrocities.
All this resembles the 1960s where anti-war protestors got status from
the number and quality of the protests they attended, and how many times they
got arrested. You got extra points if you actually showed up for The Columbia
University protests or those in Chicago or less significantly the moratorium (this
is because by this time The Washington Post, The New York Times and other major
media had already turned against the war.)
Today, to get these kinds of credentials you have to have been to
protests such as the famous Women’s March or even more significantly Charlottesville
where liberals who went there to tear down statutes to southern heroes actually
encountered real life racists and someone actually got killed.
As Kent State did for the anti-war movement, police shootings of
African Americans have created martyrs for the cause. Regardless of how many
encounters in which police did the correct thing in dealing with people who
chose to resist arrest, these relatively rare instances of misbehavior by
police – ranging in from badly handling a situation to outright abuse of power –
these people became symbols of oppression,
and the victims names got added to t-shirts for protestors to bring to protests
along with their signs and their sense of outrage.
Each protest – as proven at Charlottesville – poses and opportunity for
additional outrage for liberals and radicals (provided the person who actually becomes
a martyr doesn’t happen to be any of them.)
Identity politics as it is often called has little use for erasing
ethic racial or gender distinctions but seems determine to build walls that
create even greater divisions.
Each group lacks the patience groups of the past exercised in waiting
to gain access to the system. Many of the current groups sell the idea that the
system is stacked against them and so feel the need to bring down the existing
order so the y can build a new one in the own image.
This may explain why the anti-Semite in Minnesota feels the need to
target Jews and AOC to target Asians, two groups that successfully showed
racial and ethnic groups can assimilate without losing their identity and to
focus more on building within the existing power structure without feeling tear
it down.
We keep getting sold the myth of 400 years of slavery, while most
ignore the fact that it is blacks who sold other blacks into slavery in the
first place. We do not hear anybody asking reparations from African nations,
partly because those African nations have fallen into such poverty as to be
unable to pay reparations to anyone.
Diversity has its place in American culture but not at the expense of American
culture. Some groups seem dedicated to recreating the worlds they fled from to
come her while others in particular those associated with race dwell in a
racist past that largely does not exist, dredging up those few instances where
it does as a blanket accusation, justifying their sometimes-violent reaction to
the system. In many cases, these groups
deliberately provoke violent reactions by tearing down icons they claim as
symbolic of oppression in order to create the racism that might not have
existed prior to these acts of violence. This is a perfect example of self-fulfilling
prophesy. If you can’t find overt racism, they create the circumstance by which
to evoke an apparent racist response. Charlottesville is a perfect example of
this.
Creating a backlash against blacks, Muslins or any other group is far
easier than working to build a society that embraces all, and it also provides
opportunities for petty ethnic or racial leaders to gain power.