Diversity is a Weakness, Not a Strength

From: townhall.com, by John Hawkins,  on Oct 21, 2017

“Diversity is a strength” is one of those Orwellian maxims that’s just generally accepted as truth by most Americans despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Granted, if you’re talking about a DIVERSITY OF IDEAS, you can certainly come up with some situations where it’s a strength. For example, in the movie World War Z, Israel is saved (at least temporarily) by having a “tenth man” whose job is to forcefully argue for the alternative viewpoint to a situation where everyone agrees. So instead of laughing off the idea that Israel might face a zombie invasion, Israelis realized there was merit to it and were prepared in time to protect the country. Back in the real world, the NFL certainly could have used someone pointing out the potential long-term downsides of allowing players to disrespect the flag when just Colin Kaepernick was doing it. Donald Trump might benefit from a diversity of opinions when he’s about to tweet about Rosie O’Donnell or Mark Cuban at 4 AM. The Democrat Party could certainly use the input of a few random white factory workers from flyover country about the latest rhetoric and proposals it’s about to pitch.

On the other hand, even when diversity of thought is useful, it’s only in limited doses. The New York Yankees don’t want players who think the Boston Red Sox should win the pennant. A Republican President doesn’t want a Democrat in his Cabinet who will undermine him at every opportunity. Our military doesn’t want soldiers hoping the other side will defeat us in a war.

All that being said, when most people talk about “diversity,” they don’t mean a diversity of ideas. They believe a Hispanic guy, a black guy, a transsexual and a woman bring something to the table just by virtue of their race or gender.

This is seldom true.

For example, it is true that a group of white economists working on tax policy could benefit from having Thomas Sowell come out of retirement to join their ranks, but that’s because he’s Thomas freakin’ Sowell, not because he’s black. An all-Hispanic baseball team would benefit from adding Mike Trout to its roster, but it’s because he can play, not because of his white perspective. An all-female start-up would be lucky to get Bill Gates on board, not because he can mansplain things to them, but because he has lots of friends with infinite amounts of money who might invest if he’s on board.

In fact, diversity is often a huge minus. The new black employee may claim you discriminated against him, even if he’s fired for legitimate reasons. The woman may sue for sexual harassment after seeing a swimsuit calendar on some random guy’s wall. The Satanist you hire may call it religious discrimination if you don’t offer him a goat to sacrifice to Lucifer on Halloween.

Diversity can work just fine, but only if there’s strong pressure on people to assimilate to the existing culture. That’s why our very diverse military functions so well. However, we don’t have those conditions in America as a whole. Instead, we have liberals promoting tribalism and grievance mongering non-stop. In other words, every racial, sexual and religious difference is used as a way to split people further apart. Many of the same people who claim diversity is a strength will also tell you white people can’t understand the concerns of black Americans, men are oppressing women and women who don’t want to share a bathroom with a transsexual man are bigots.

It’s worth noting that America’s increasing diversity is largely a product of a change to our immigration system implemented in the sixties. European-born immigrants made up 75% of American immigrants in 1960, but that percentage dropped to only 11 percent in 2014. Combine that with the cultural degradation and rise of tribalism that has occurred during the last couple of decades and we have seen a much more radical change in this country than most people realize. Furthermore, as Robert Putnam noted, all of this diversity in America has a lot of negative consequences,

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger. But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. “The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

Actually, it’s not all that shocking. We make this assumption that as people from different groups get to know each other, they’ll grow to like each other. Unfortunately, this can only occur where people have shared values and goals. For many Americans, if your neighbors are waving a Mexican flag and saying America sucks, say you’re part of rape culture, want America to live under Sharia law or accuse you of having privilege because you’re white, the more you get to know them, the LESS you are going to like them. Additionally, if they believe those things, chances are they don’t like you either.

We see this same pattern all over the planet. Look at the conflicts going on in Afghanistan, Libya, Israel, and Iraq. How’s that diversity working out for them? How is diversity playing out for Russia and Chechnya? What about the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda? How about Bosnia and Herzegovina? Even the Western part of the Roman Empire eventually fell because it became too corrupt and weak to assimilate the tribes it allowed inside its border. In the end, diversity cost the Romans their empire.

The only thing that ever allowed Americans to believe that diversity is a strength was our uniting culture. Without the now-destroyed Melting Pot to keep us together, diversity is one of our nation’s great weaknesses.


Diversity, as it’s practiced today in America is a load of socialistic happy gas.

It amounts to a forced integration of cultures, concepts, and experiences whether we want them or not. What makes it worse is that it’s being forced on us by progressives who want us all to be the same. The same, except for diversity of thought, which cannot be allowed – all thought must toe the party line.

It’s natural to gravitate towards people like one’s self, yet that idea is being painted as a negative as if it’s unnatural to prefer to be with those who are like us. We’re encouraged to “widen our horizons” by associating with those who are unlike us, and that applies to race, gender, nationality, etc.

While it’s true that spending time with those from a different country or a different race can contribute towards a better understanding of those who are different, that presupposes that we are open and accepting of this new information and perspectives. It is also possible that exposure to that other race, nationality, etc. isn’t a positive experience and results in a negative view of that other group.

One of the problems facing this country today is the immigration of many disparate cultures without the assimilation that has accompanied those immigrants in previous years. We’ve considered ourselves a “melting pot” because people from other lands came here and assimilated, learning English, and trying to blend in with others in our American way of life.

Now, they’re more likely to continue speaking their native languages, living in proximity to one another, and retaining as much of the “old country’s” flavor as possible, all in preference to living an American “way of life.”

We’ll do a lot better in the future with a lot less diversity and a lot more assimilation.


Categories: Political


8 replies

  1. In California, 46% of households do not speak English in their homes. That’s diversity and it stops the aability to communicate, work effectively in a job, become educated, and become friends with others of different nationalities. In fact, it stops our ‘melting pot’ which is the pride of immigration in the US. Our melting pot made us what we are, a cohesive group of people from all over the world believing in the morals and freedoms provided by our forefathers and knowledge of that history. Wait, it’s really not what we are any more. We are not a melting pot. We are many different pots who don’t speak to each other.

    We are in real trouble here.

    This statement is important:

    “In the end, diversity cost the Romans their empire.”


    • That is a real problem, tannngl. The progressives no longer expect immigrants to assimilate and so they don’t. When they don’t assimilate, we end up with little conclaves of foreigners who don’t speak English, don’t try to fit into our American way of life, and try to reestablish their old country in their neighborhoods. That is why there will always be trouble between those “aliens on our soil” and citizens – a lack of commonality – in language, in food and dress, in political concepts, and in a vision of the future of the country.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Diversity is the difference between the “Melting Pot” view of immigration and the “Tossed Salad” view. In the latter there is no societal consolidation, only containment of various competing textures and flavors.

    In other words, diversity is an assault on national identity and shared culture.


  3. I can almost remember the very day, 25 years-ish ago, when “diversity” became the newest buzz word of the Left. Within weeks of its introduction as the latest concept we must embrace, the word was being embedded in mission statements and human resources literature in companies from coast to coast. You were a nobody from Backwardsville if you weren’t preaching diversity. And of course, as with every concept that the Left suddenly develops a passion for, I immediately wondered what the devils were up to. What was so great about “diversity” that we should prioritize this ahead of, say, good character or hard work? I was so young and innocent back then. It didn’t take long for the light bulb to go on, and to realize that traditional values like good character, experience and hard work tend to favor whites; therefore if we de-prioritize these traits in favor of diversity, more people of color can have jobs that they didn’t earn by virtue of experience or by demonstrating a strong work ethic.

    No matter how old I get and no matter how many times it happens, though, I will never cease to be amazed at the Left’s talent for changing the landscape just with the introduction of cleverly conceived buzz words, like “diversity.” Who wants to argue against “diversity” and risk being labeled as a racist? And when one buzz word starts to lose its mojo, the elites introduce the next word they’ve suddenly rediscovered, such as “inclusive.” This gets the liberals excited all over again, and they begin rewriting their mission statements and their HR literature to show that they’re up with all the latest lingo. And who wants to be against inclusiveness? And so it goes.

    Whether or not diversity is good or bad depends upon the circumstances and the nature of the diversity. Both you and John Hawkins make a good case for the circumstances in which it is a negative, but the process of explaining this with the comprehensiveness it deserves doesn’t conform to a mindless, happy sounding buzz word so………….the Left wins.


    • As we’ve come to recognize, CW, the left relies on there being no investigation or verification of their memes, they just expect people (their mindless followers) to accept their statements as Gospel and, unfortunately, as long as they go unchallenged, people will form the wrong conclusions.


  4. Diversity works well in some areas, but not so well in other areas. The problem with liberals and diversity is that they try to make it work in areas where people don’t want it. Like breaking up inner city urban areas and pushing them into suburban neighborhoods. Neither side wants it, but the Dems jack with housing regulations and property values in order to force on people.

    Like forcing us to accept thousands of muslim refugees into our midst when we don’t know if one of them is the next 9/11 terrorist. They share very few of our values and have much different lifestyles, so they stick together with their own, just like we do. Libs just never know when to leave well enough alone.


    • I agree, voluntary diversity can be educational, while forced diversity can be resented. It matters not to them, it’s just another one of their Utopian pipe dreams with little basis in fact. And it’s bad enough when diversity is forced between blacks and whites – all of whom speak the same language (to some degree) and have been American for life. But when extended to people (like the Muslims from Syria) who are from countries that couldn’t be more different and allow them to reject assimilation, we’re asking for trouble – but they either can’t or won’t accept it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: