Forced Diversity WHY?

diversity

According to the U.S. census (2014 estimate), 77.7% of our population is White, while Black or African Americans account for 13.2%. It should be noted that I’m referring to the United States alone in this analysis, no other countries are included.

The Obama administration and progressives in general, are actively at work pushing racial diversity as some Utopian goal. In my opinion, the only reason is that it is a way of catering to the African-American voting bloc and, as one of the democrat’s primary source of votes; they need to keep the black folk on the plantation.

In this essay, I want to examine the reasons for the push for racial diversity.

My first question is: why is diversity supposed to be good?

If diversity is good, why does it have to be forced on us? Why wouldn’t most people automatically choose to diversify if it were to their advantage or was somehow more satisfying?

I maintain that voluntary diversity is good and comes with its own satisfying benefits. Being forced to diversify, just like being forced to do anything, runs afoul of human nature, and is likely to generate resentment, and rebellion.

On the other hand, why is a lack of diversity supposed to be bad? According to the proponents of forced diversity, the only reason for a lack of diversity is racism. So, answer me this: what negatives accrue to those associating with “their own kind” regardless of whether they band together because of skin color, economic status, or enthusiasm for a particular sports team?

In other words, why is a lack of diversity bad?

I maintain that associating with people who are “like us” is a natural human inclination and shouldn’t be discouraged, much less made illegal.

By now, it’s becoming clear that in the current use of the word, diversity is really a code word for forced racial integration. As the left is wont to do, they just repackaged a concept with a new label and then endeavor to paint the new label with a wondrous and satisfying façade, one that (they believe) will be more acceptable than that tired old word “integration.” That’s what it’s always been about.

When integration became the law of the land, it was assumed that over time, we’d lose most (if not all) of the vestiges of the country’s segregated past. I concur, that given time, voluntary integration of the races would occur naturally. But forced social engineering is doomed to failure because it’s unnatural.

I’m an old guy, and I’ve seen the strides that’ve been made in race relations over the past several decades. I remember when facilities were segregated and “whites only” and “colored” signs were common. That gradually evolved into facilities being “separate but equal,” and over time, that concept went away and now there are no longer any overt racial aspects in most of our day-to-day lives. There may have been milestones along the way, but all the while real racial equality was moving in a positive direction.

From my own experience, I’ve seen race relations progress light-years from when I was a teen to those days before Barack Obama inserted himself into the equation. Based on his “help,” race relations are much worse today than in the early 2000’s. There’s genuine animosity now that wasn’t as prevalent before.

True, there were always some (on both sides) who weren’t satisfied with the pace of change, but change was happening and it was happening peacefully. Here are two examples to illustrate that I’m not alone in my thinking that race relations are trending negatively:

  • A recent Gallup poll (equal number of blacks and whites) compared views on black-white relations and found that in 2013, 70% of Americans said that race relations were either “very good” or “somewhat good.” In July of 2015, that 70% dropped to 47%. A 23% drop in just two years.
  • Another poll by New York Times-CBS (65% blacks, 62% whites), also taken in July of this year, notes that 61% of Americans believe that race relations are generally bad in the U.S. – and 44% think that they’re getting worse.

A perception of worsening race relations is accurate and much of the reason can be laid at the foot of Barack Obama.

Most people don’t respond positively when forced to do things. Force begets resentment and resentment brings with it some unattractive side effects. People generally (and naturally) resent being forced to do things and they’ll rebel given an opportunity.

People generally gather together voluntarily because of similar interests. Any number of examples may be found in sports clubs, automobile clubs, or clubs devoted to hobbies. Professional associations of all sorts and flavors also fall into this category.

No one would be pressing a club created for soccer enthusiasts to diversify by encouraging astronomy buffs to join, would they? And certainly a club devoted to shooting skeet wouldn’t benefit its members by actively pursuing new members who were more interested in quilting. Yes, those comparisons may be ludicrous, but they do apply and they are appropriate.

I am not saying that Blacks and Whites should be segregated, only that we shouldn’t be forced to be inclusive in every endeavor. Diversity (integration) will occur naturally as groups gather together for a common reason, be that socializing over good food or supporting a sports team. Music and sports are two areas that have flourished while diversifying – naturally.

In fairness, shouldn’t we be forcing diversity on the National Basketball Association or in the Congressional Black Caucus? The membership in both of those two associations is disproportionately African-American. Why is the lack of diversity in those organizations accepted and safe from interference? And we can’t ignore the lack of diversity when it comes to political thought on our college campuses. Conservative perspectives are not just frowned upon, they’re shouted down in presentations or prevented from holding intellectual forums – why is that supposed to be good?

Disproportionality is often quoted as evidence of racial discrimination, but only when the numbers support the speaker’s agenda. Disproportionality is not itself indicative of anything untoward; however the poor beleaguered word has suffered from misuse as a racial epithet and now is saddled with a negative connotation.

What we should be supporting are equal opportunities for all, not equal outcomes. When we adjust applications for college or jobs to force equality in outcome, we’re going against nature and business interests – and both will suffer.

Affirmative Action can breed resentment and may carry with it a reasonable question of those who benefited from it – could they have qualified without affirmative action? That can taint an AA recipient as perhaps not being worthy of the action.

Back in the 50’s and 60’s, interracial couples were rare and interracial marriages were unheard of. Now, we’re seeing more and more mixed-race children born of a mixed-race couple which means that the population is naturally becoming more diverse – without the government’s thumb on the scale.

That’s the whole point of this essay.

Diversity occurring naturally is a good thing, but forcing it only breeds resentment; resentment breeds backlash, and that’s NOT a good thing.

Garnet92

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Forced Diversity WHY?

  1. Uriel says:

    Well said Garnet. As another old person who does remember, your points are spot on.

    It’s like any other aspect of life. We see a need, advocate to fix the need, and then abuse the very need we started to fix by micromanaging.

    Wonder when we will ever learn to let go and let natural laws work instead of meddling things to death.

  2. Kathy says:

    Superb piece, Garnet. Integration was progressing nicely before O decided he needed to be in charge of it. His being unqualified for the job and having ulterior motives has driven the wedge in even deeper.

    Had O left well enough alone, things would have been just fine. Now we have to start all over with race relations once we finally get this man booted out of our house.

    I still maintain that if we’d elected the correct ‘first black president’ things would have improved significantly. We’d be seeing a voluntary diversity, which would have made for a stronger country.

  3. Grouchy says:

    One superb essay, Garnet, and as an old geezer myself, I can identify with all you’ve written. Further, I am in complete agreement with you, Uriel and Kathy.
    I fear we have some dark days ahead, that will be worse than the days of the “Imperial Wizards”, and the KKK. We’re already seeing that, in the rise of the “New Black Panther Party”, and “Black Lives Matter.”
    ALL should be recognized for the individual contributions they make, in the terms that they make them~! Anything else is pure Marxism: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
    And your statement, “What we should be supporting are equal opportunities for all, not equal outcomes.” is so spot on, that Ayn Rand would be grinning~!

    • Garnet92 says:

      Thanks Grouchy. I think that it’s a good indication that we all remember similar perceptions of the racial environment back then. I’m sad to say that we’re closer to a real race war today (thanks to B. Hussein Obama) than at any time in my life.

  4. vonMesser says:

    I can remember the bad old days. Even had a cross burned on my lawn as a kid because we were Catholics and thus not real Chrstians and not real Americans. (Didn’t matter my dad was an active duty Chief in the Navy and my mom had been a WAVE in WW-2). However, those days are not as bad as what we have now. At least then you knew openly who the enemy was.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Agreed VM, though I’ve never had a cross burned on our lawn (I’m Catholic too). It may have been because in Louisiana, Catholics were much more numerous. I suspect that even some blacks will agree with us that they had little to fear from an ordinary white person as long as he wasn’t wearing KKK garb.

  5. Hardnox says:

    Excellent essay Garnet. You pose some great questions. As we all know America was well on its way to racial harmony until the left, obstensively Obama, began to force it on us. Now any natural gains made have been reversed.

    Like everything else the left touches, it turns to shit then they impose laws on us to force us to like it.

    Now it’s dangerous to go into certain areas just because of one’s skin color. So much for that forced “diversity”. Another huge lefty fail.

    • Garnet92 says:

      It’s true. I know from my perspective, and those of my friends, that race relations have taken a major hit and it’s all Obama’s fault. The crappy thing is that so many black people refuse to accept that and stubbornly continue to support him. He’s done them no favors.