Bull$hit. You pretend that diversity/multiculturalism was created out of thin air, and then society engineered to produce it.<quoted text>
Here's another example of a value that those who call themselves "liberal" today hold. The value is cultural pluralism, or multiculturalism. Those two terms can basically be used interchangeably. They believe it is a "value" to have society BECOME more "diverse." LOL, and oftentimes when they try to explain why they talk about the food. "Oh, think about all the great food w'ell eat!" lololololol!
I emphasized the word "become" in the earlier paragraph because they think a culturally homogeneous society is bad. "Diversity" needs to be introduced more and more into places that lack it. This idea is completely different and separate from the idea that cultures within a society should or should not assimilate.
But, even when empirical scientific data proves diversity is not so good for society, these liberal ideologues hold fast to their a priori values that "diversity" is good, for some reason. Cultural pluralism supposedly came out of schools of thought that stressed the scientific method when dealing with social engineering. This was started in the early 20th century.
For example, let's take the work of Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam. After doing a long study he says this:
"In the presence of [ethnic] diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And its not just that we dont trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we dont trust people who do look like us."
From the article:
"When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust.'They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions' said Prof Putnam.'The only thing there's more of is protest marches and TV watching.'"
He hid the results of this study for years until he could shoe-horn in some theory to make it jibe with his "values", values supposedly founded on some dubious devotion to scientific method. At least he was honest enough to come out with it, eventually... etc.
No. The USA was already diverse. There was a significant population of African-Americans and Mexicans, as well as smaller numbers of Natives, Puerto Ricans, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, etc., all of whom maintained ethnic distinctiveness.
And why didn't they enter the melting pot along with the Germans, Poles, Italians, Irish, French, Swedes, etc.? Because of RACISM from the white majority!
The call for diversity is the call to end the racism! And to acknowledge that everyone is not going to melt into the pot. To force assimilation is oppressive and abusive. A good example is Jews. They are NOT going to melt religiously and become Presbyterians and Methodists! And Mexicans, with their huge home country right next door, are not going to become gringos. And so on.
To oppose diversity is to slap every minority in the face. No, you cannot have your culture, your difference, you must become an amalgamated mainstream American. This was FORCED on Native Americans, with boarding schools and other culture-genocide policies.
I say the Lakota have a right to be Lakota and remain so. I say Jews can remain Jews. I say we can continue to have a large spanish-speaking population that does not forget the language. I say black people can celebrate being black and having their own unique twist on American culture.
What do YOU suggest? Perhaps we could dye everyone the same color, would that make you feel better?