But they are diverse, Bookworm. They are a diverse sample of the ruling elite. And since there is only ONE ruling elite, there cannot be those “outside” this eliteness. Because if you were different from the elite, this would make you non-elite, and you cannot have an Elite Group if it accepts anybody. So the “broadness” must then compose the full diverse potential, Book.
Another word which has had its classic meaning changed to fit a left-leaning political agenda is toleration – used to mean that I just put up with – tolerated! – your nutty ideas with a certain amount of good will because we both breath the same air, live on the same planet, etc etc. The left has tried to redefine the word to mean if don’t EMBRACE your nutty ideas I’m a ——– fill in the blank with adhominum attack of the day. This lessens our ability to have a real dialogue – which is, I guess, the reason behind the agenda.
What I’ve found in the arts is that diversity means bringing together people of diffent age, race, ethnicity and sexual preference, who all think exactly alike on every political and social issue, and whose views are generally indistinguishable from those promulgated by the NY Times. It’s like my teenage daughter said about the cliques at her high school: you can spot the nonconformists; they all dress alike.
Everyone needs to belong. Belong To something, to some group or faction or philosophy. Those who try the most to separate out their humanity, will in turn be chained by the most basic desires of humanity.
Because after all, thoes are the easiest to brainwash, to make bitter, to convince to be used as cannon fodder. The folks who are alienated from the traditional core, who are desperate, who will find or believe in anything or anyone easily.
I think the U.S. is stronger than that, Y. Resilient. Able to overcome. I have optimism. Some one said at a party I was at the other night, immigration is the sincerest form of flattery, and people risk all to get to the U.S. Immigrants to the U.S. have always achieved things here they could never dream of in their native country — my own ancestors, most of whom escaped rural poverty in eastern Europe, included. Muslims who migrate here for the most part won’t be any exception. At the gym a couple weeks I talked to guy from Bosnia (Catholic, not Orthodox or Muslim) who came here from Germany. I asked why America? He just kind of grunted and shook his head. “Stupid question.”
I’ve had lots of conversations with DQ about the new generation of immigrants with entitlement demands. That is, old immigrants wnated the American dream but, in their homes and communities often continued their traditional ways. The new generation wants to impose its traditional ways on America as a whole (there’s that sense of entitlement), even if means turning America into a carbon copy of the land, whatever land, that they wanted to escape. I embrace immigrants who (a) come here legally and (b) in the public forum embrace what America is. I’m quite hostile to those who (a) come here illegally and (b) work to destroy America’s essence.
America has a rabbit’s head start, but that doesn’t mean it will always be true. So I advocate the opposite of what TS believes and behaves towards. Which is eternal vigilance, and not a lackaidaisical attitude that it will never happen, let’s all float free in the breeze or something. For a strange reason, it is the neo-cons that are the most realistic about wars and such, while other folks who criticize the neo-cons as being too optimistic, are themselves carrying on with certain sunshades on.
I don’t know how Zhombre posted his comment here though, when I think it adddressed to what I said on that other one.
Book, I think the key is to be very selective with whom we let in: not based upon education or ethnic/religious origin, but upon fealty to the constitutional values we espouse. I am working my way through Paul Johnson’s absolutely first-rate “A History of the American People” (http://www.amazon.com/History-American-People-Paul-Johnson/dp/0060930349/sr=8-1/qid=1166578369/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6369716-4248034?ie=UTF8&s=books) and it reinforces for me that what makes us truly American is our Constitution and the values that it represents. Our “Constitution” was an American innovation. One way to filter out the undesirables is to make would-be immigrants swear fealty to the constitution and provide mechanisms to revoke their newly acquired citizenship if they work to undermine it (provide for a long probation). I realize that DQ probably disagrees. As far as Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are concerned, you need to understand Chicago ward politics for all this to make sense (a la Rahm Emanuel)- “diversity” means diversity in voting blocs that can be made dependent upon Democrat patronage politics. These are defined by ethnic backgrounds, skin color and sexual orientation. It has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to think for themselves. In fact, “thinking for themselves” is anathema. The objective is to “divide and render dependent”. I hope that I am making sense by the way…I am sipping an absolutely superlative Scotch to excess as I blog.
Some can remember when ‘code word’ entered popular discourse. Libs applied it. It’s a standard Academia term. Now we can return the favor.
‘Diversity’ is a ‘Liberal code word’ used to exclude anyone different from Libs. As Y. says, “you aint’ us.” ‘Racism’ is a more pejorative form. It’s the ultimate crime. It can get you (if you’re the wrong group) banned, ostracized, fired.
Political crimes are common to other countries’ histories. Now we have them in America.