Merit of Diversity
We are often told to "celebrate diversity." Similarly, it is heavily implied if not outright stated that diversity is a strength.
You can mindlessly accept or reject this notion, or you could ask yourself an important question: how does diversity improve society?
I thought about this for a few minutes, and then I realized, it doesn't. Not at all.
I'm not advocating racism, sexism, or bigotry of any kind, but the reality is that the diverse world we inhabit is far more a curse than a blessing. True, I think we have to do our best to mitigate the inevitable conflicts that diversity causes, but this is not "celebrating" diversity--it is "coping" with it. The diversity itself is the problem.
Think about it. "Diversity" is really just a positive spin on words with decidedly more negative connotations like "divide" and "division." Divisions imply a lack of unity. Consider catch phrases like "Divide and conquer" and "United we stand, divided we fall." I am not presenting these as absolute truths, but their prevalence does suggest that we accept the value of "unity" as a positive thing.
Yet, "unity" and "diversity" are totally contradictory. One might attempt to blend the best of both worlds; say, a diverse people as a unified nation. I find this sort of rhetoric empty. I would rather analyze the respective merit of diversity and unity and then determine which is the better ideal to work towards. My focus here, though, is pointing out the shortcomings of diversity rather than the merit of unity.
So, forget "celebrating diversity." A more pertinent gesture is asking whether diversity is something to be celebrated in the first place. And again, I believe the answer is no.
First, a world with one race is far superior to a world with many. I'm not saying we work towards that end through mass genocide. I'm simply pointing out that a great deal of injustice, hate, violence, and conflict would never have occurred had different races never evolved. All race does is serve as a "marker," a convenient way of stereotyping people. A world with one race would be a world of far less prejudice. No slavery arbitrarily based on the color of one's skin; no distrust between races; no need for political correctness; no racial profiling; no playing the race card; no race based economic inequality.
Excuse me for failing to see how racial diversity (i.e. racial divisions) benefit us. One might pull out the predictable and frankly very weak "a one race world would not be very interesting" card, and I'd reply, have you ever lived in one? A world unacquainted with racial divisions would not lament a world devoid of racial divisions!
At the risk of sounding obtuse, let me clarify if I haven't already that I am in no way implying that one race is superior to another or that I hate all races aside from my own. On the contrary--I sympathize with minorities and regret the injustices they have historically been subjected to; in fact, this is my very point! Without races, there can be no racial injustice, and this would be a preferable outcome.
Religious diversity is arguably even worse, and this is readily observed all across the world and all throughout history. Religion serves as another vehicle through which we can classify and stereotype people. In the more virulent strains of opposing followers, religion can incite rancor, hatred, and violence. Note again that I am not concerned with the truth or merit of religion itself, but merely the understanding that it is another way people are split into factions, which I argue makes us weaker, not stronger.
Now, there is, I think, one desirable kind of diversity, but it is not the type groups that promote "diversity" are interested in. And that is diversity of thought. Differing ideas and opinions keep us as a people moving forward; they challenge long held but obsolete customs; they enrich the world; and they actually do make us stronger.
So, you might argue that diverse ideas are invariably tied to different cultures which are in turn derived from peoples of varying races and creeds. I concede that they are often tied to culture, but am skeptical as to where race (and to a lesser extent, creed) factor in. Groups of people developing independently of one another around the world are going to evolve their own unique culture, and this culture has nothing to do with the color of their skin. A one race society could achieve just as much diversity of thought as the one we have, and any loss in diversity of thought that resulted from religious homogeneity (or the absence of religion in general) would certainly be offset by the the corresponding reduction in violence, hate, and bloodshed.
In conclusion, I posit that "Tolerate Diversity" or "Accommodate Diversity" are indeed far better depictions of reality than "Celebrate Diversity." Whether by natural evolution or through God, we have inherited a diverse world, and this division poses far more challenges than benefits. If "Celebrate Diversity" means that we should aim to make the best of circumstances within this framework, than I am all for it. But I personally find it dubious to "celebrate" something that has unequivocally done more ill than good.
Last edited by Ron_Mexico; 12-06-2007 at 05:06 PM..