How is Diversity Treated in America?

I guess the definition posted by ceci2006 is pretty inacurate then. I originally thought that diversity had nothing to do with "acceptance and respect". I was thiking that was the actual definition, but they appear to grouping unity into diversity. Im gonna hide now

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Xeros]

Diversity does have something to do with acceptance and respect. Some may feel they might not have the time to learn about the culture of others or acknowledge aspects of another's culture. However, the inability to accept and learn about another's culture sort of conveys a sense of laziness about being respectful of other people apart from the dominant culture.

Secondly, it also gives one the view that the person who feels gridlock by the refusal of learning another's culture simply finds it easier to comply to the standards of the dominant culture. It also gives the impressin that the culture of others are simply not that important to learn about.

It's not about being admirable when trying to learn about the cultures of others. It's about being kind and caring in the acknowledgement that their culture is relevant and honored.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


And, Xeros, the definition of diversity is not inaccurate. However, it is one way to describe what diversity is like in the United States. One can disagree with the definition--which you did. But the operative question to ask is what is your definition of diversity. That was actually a question in the OP. You may have missed it, perhaps?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why it is so hard for some to accept and acknowledge another's culture, traditions and social practices? Is there a simple inability to understand that there are cultures that exist beyond the one promoted by the dominant culture?

[edit on 9-10-2006 by ceci2006]

I think diversity should be a two way street.
Those living in a country, say the US, should be open and curious about those who are new. They should be kind.
But, these feelings and behaviors should be because a person wants to be open, fair and kind. Not because a government deems it so.

OTOH, those new to a country should be open and curious about their host country. They should try to be a part of the fabric of their new country.

DTOM,

I agree. It should be a two way street. Thank you for saying that. But, I tend to add that sometimes, there are people who only accept one way or the other, but not both.

I think, that is a problem when discussing issues of diversity.

There are some who only want to acknowledge the dominant culture at large without even noticing that the various subcultures within America have contributed to the fabric of the nation in their own way.

And then, there are cultures that refuse to assimilate to the larger culture while being pressured by those who only sponsor nationalism to do so.

Maybe the question of diversity needs to be reframed so it can both accept the diversity of different groups living in America while realizing that they do sponor the larger issues of national values while living here. But as long as they are forced into the extremity of only accepting American values, then there is the pressure to resist.

There needs to be a middle ground somewhere in between.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by ceci2006]

Part of the question is, I think, what does assimilation do to 'cultural diversity' (as opposed to straight up ethnic diversity). Does it decrease it? Is, for example, early colonial america more diverse than the pan-european cultural 'blend' that is today the 'standard' anglo culture, or is that fusion of german, anglo, irish, italian, etc, cultures into the original anglo-saxon culture more diverse, even if its one commonly shared culture?

I believe that Anglo culture is very diverse. However, a lot of attention has been paid to their diversity through emphasis of the different ethnicities within it.

However, that same attention isn't paid to the cultures that don't fit into Anglo culture. This aspect was very problematic after 9/11. Because of the inability of some to try and understand the Muslim culture, for example, it was easier to assume that they were all "terrorists" who had a "jihad" when that wasn't the truth of those who practiced their faith and cultural practices while trying to live their daily lives in the United States.

Several Muslim groups have set up programs to get the American culture at large to understand their way of life to reduce the animus against them. But when you have the national leader talking about "Islamic Fascism" (which certainly doesn't exist), his words can only work against the acceptance of diversity in the case of Muslims.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Several Muslim groups have set up programs to get the American culture at large to understand their way of life to reduce the animus against them.

That's all fine and well.
But, other cultures such as Muslims need to adapt to certain American ways.
Such as women uncovering their faces for a driver's license.

Also, I think the "politically correct" agenda often does a disservice to everyone. No one would argue about learning about the holidays of other cultures.
But, to homogenize holidays to a one-size fits-all hurts diversity rather than helps.
I hope this is not getting off topic. I was trying to show how some efforts at diversity can backfire.

In general, and I suspect most people will disagree with this, America does a good job of accepting and assimilating other cultures.

I mean, look at the cultures that do a bad job of this, like France. Muslims in france are ticked off. People think American Muslims are angry, they're not. French Muslims are friggin' angry, they're so angry that they're rioting in the streets and burning down buildings.

But in america? I don't recall detroit being ravaged by crazed muslim youths. People do have an ability to get along, more or less. Of course, this isn't true for everyone everywhere in america. BUt america has done a good job of accepting and assimilating people from oriental cultures, middle eastern cultures, indian-pakistani cultures, and south american cultures.

DTOM,

I understand what you are trying to say. That is fair. But, what if such groups have done what they could to assimilate into American culture and receive nothing but intolerance? What have Americans who subscribe to assimilationist thinking done to truly make American culture a welcoming experience?

Assimilationists, especially after 9/11, haven't done anything but subscribe to the "War on Terror" and anti-immigraton rhetoric. They use that type of thinking to guide their judgement as they stigmatize whole groups for the actions of a few. A lot of lip service has been paid about joining the American culture at large. However, has America been welcoming of people of color and immigrants who come here? Do they easily subscribe into the fears of another culture? Or do they take the time to accept only certain cultures opposed to others?

Should the burden be solely on the subculture alone to try and be accepted by the host country? Or should people who have adopted to the ways of the host country accept some of the responsibility to make other groups welcome here?

I partly agree with Nygdan. America is very good at assimilating other cultures. But, the United States is not very good at accepting the social practices, heritage and belief systems of those who don't subscribe to the dominant culture. In fact, the nationalism resulting from 9/11 supports only assimilation, but not acceptance of diversity. Assimilation is done by force by not allowing certain subcultures to accept aspects of the American culture they choose to. Above all else, there is still the mind-set that has a particular image of what the "ideal American" is like. As the article from Dr. Orozco purports, there are Americans who simply don't look like "Americans" here. They face prejudice and misunderstanding because of that by the "Americans" who do embody the United States ideal.

Maybe if people were curious enough to ask a Muslim why this is so, this issue that you brought up about the aspects of women might be answered. Any Muslims like to shed light on this issue to clear it up?


[edit on 10-10-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Diversity does have something to do with acceptance and respect.

Only in a specific sense, which is the meaning you posted in the OP. I understand that's the meaning you are using for the purposes of this thread, but it's a loaded meaning (buzzword). The word itself doesn't necessarily include acceptance and respect. Even "inclusion" does not necessarily convey acceptance and respect. The US "includes" a diverse set of cultures, but not everyone accepts and respects all others.

Diversity

diversity - 1 : the condition of being diverse : VARIETY;
especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization

diverse - 1 : differing from one another : UNLIKE
2 : composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities
synonym see DIFFERENT

Some may feel they might not have the time to learn about the culture of others or acknowledge aspects of another's culture. However, the inability to accept and learn about another's culture sort of conveys a sense of laziness about being respectful of other people apart from the dominant culture.

I suppose laziness and lack of time might be part of the reason for some people to choose not to learn the details of other cultures, but I'm certain those aren't the only reasons. In fact, I'm certain that in some cases, the reasons people don't want or need to learn about others' cultures aren't derogatory at all. In some cases, it's not an inability to learn or laziness, but a simple choice, with no failing or fault on their part at all.

For example, let's say a person from Pakistan moves into the US. If they don't learn the reasons for the acknowledgement of the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur and educate themselves on Jewish practices and traditions, does that mean they're lazy? Does it mean they have no respect for Jewish people? Does it mean they're unable to learn or don't have the time? No, not at all. It could be for a multitude of reasons, many of which aren't derogatory.

Maybe, just maybe they're simply not interested. That's not to say that they're unkind and uncaring people or that they're "in gridlock" or they refuse or that they view their culture as more important. It doesn't have to indicate resistance of Jews. It may just be that Jewish culture simply does not cross paths with them in their day to day lives. They can still respect and honor Jewish people and their customs and culture without understanding it all.

Or, if they are so inclined and curious about it, they can do research, read about it, talk to Jewish people or attend a program to learn about Judaism or Jewish history. It's an option. And it's not necessary to judge people who don't choose that option as lazy, unable, unkind or uncaring. It's not accurate.

A knowledge of another's cultural practices isn't necessary to be respectful and honoring of that culture. One doesn't have to have knowledge to acknowledge another culture's relevance or validity.

Why it is so hard for some to accept and acknowledge another's culture, traditions and social practices?

I don't think it is hard. But if some find it hard, it may be for the same reason that it's difficult for some to acknowledge another person's political party and practices. Or music tastes. Or religious beliefs. Or sports fanaticism. Or any one of the many ways we are diverse.

Is there a simple inability to understand that there are cultures that exist beyond the one promoted by the dominant culture?

I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't understand that there are cultures that exist beyond the one promoted by the dominant culture. And as I've said, acknowledgement of a culture does not require an in-depth or even superficial knowledge of the practices of that culture.

Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Is my earlier example about the person from Pakistan irrelevant? Is it only the dominant culture that is being expected to explore, learn about and accept the multitude of other cultures, traditions, religions and practices that are in the US? Or is your point that everyone should explore, learn about and accept every other culture, tradition and religion of all the people living in the US?

Because there are probably a hundred subcultures in the US with very little experience, understanding and knowledge of the other hundred subcultures that exist in this country. And I don't think I'd paint them all with the brush of being 'lazy'...

Here are some more excerpts from articles to contribute towards thinking about diversity:

This first excerpt comes from Kansas State University:

Why Diversity is Important

Knowledge—awareness and understanding needed to live and work in a diverse world.

Cultural Self—the ability to understand one’s ethnic identify and how it influences identity development.

Diverse Ethnic Groups—knowledge of diverse ethnic groups and their cultures.

Social/Political/Economic/Historical Frameworks—awareness of how social, political, economic, and historical issues impact race and ethnic relations in the world.

Changing demographics—understanding population dynamics related to ethnic minority and majority citizens.

Diversity Implications for Career—understanding how diversity impacts the academic discipline, career and professional development.

Personal Attributes—traits needed by those who live and work in a diverse world.

Flexibility—the ability to respond and adapt to new and changing situations.

Respect—an appreciation for those who are different from one’s self.

Empathy—the ability to understand other person’s culture by listening to and understanding their perspective.

Skills—behaviors and performance tasks needed to live and work in a diverse world.

Cross Cultural Communication—verbal and nonverbal communication skills in interaction with those who are culturally different from one’s self.

Teamwork—the ability to work in culturally diverse groups toward a common goal.

Listening—the intention and ability to attend to what others are saying.

Conflict Resolution—the ability to resolve cultural conflicts that occur between individuals and groups.

Critical Thinking—the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning to understand diverse perspectives.

Language Development—the ability to speak and write more than one language.

Leadership Development—the ability to provide multicultural leadership.

These are comments spoken from Steven Birdline--who was training the University of Virginia police department on notions of diversity. He says some very interesting points that we all can consider in this conversation:

Diversity: It's Time to Face the Facts


“Diversity has nothing to do with niceness,” Birdine told his audience. “If you leave the house looking to be offended, then you will be offended. And if you live your life afraid of offending other people, then you aren’t going to please anybody.”

People look at the world through what is familiar to them and stereotypes, he said. And being fearful of offending reduces communication.

“If you don’t see my color, you don’t see me,” Birdine told the officers. “I’ve been places where I am the only black guy in a room full of white people, somebody comes looking for me, they’re scared to say, ‘He’s the black guy.’ We are scared to talk to each other. We need an open and honest conversation.”

This passage has to do with the concept of "treating people the same". It echoes some points that Dr. Orozco made in her article regarding how America isn't colorblind. However, there needs to be clarification about why diversity is seen with "divisiveness" and why "colorblindness" is more acceptable. These remarks are made by author Mark Halstead. Mr. Halstead is describing six different types of racism in his excerpts on this site. For this excerpt, I would like to deal with his notion of "colorblindedness" as a way to explain why there might be an inability for some to understand diversity:

Education, Justice, and Cultural Diversity: An Examination of the Honeyford Affair, 1984-85

Color-blind racism is the type which most closely corresponds to what is commonly called 'unintentional racism.'... What is it that makes color-blindness a type of racism rather than merely a misguided form of action? I want to argue that color-blindness not only leads to undesirable outcomes (the disadvantaging of black people by ignoring or marginalizing their distinctive needs, experiences and identity), but may also involve racial injustice.
[...]
Color- blindness falls down because it is based on an idealistic principle (that all people are equal) which may be valid sub specie aeternitatis but which fails to take account of the contingent facts of racial inequality and disadvantage in our present society. (139-55)

This last piece weighs the differences between diversity and assimilation. It is a provacative read because it discusses American society in the wake of 9/11 and what might be its future outcome. The remarks are made by Gary Weaver of American University. See if you agree or disagree with his points:

Scholar Discusses Diversity of American Culture

Asked to explain America's relative success in assimilating successive waves of immigrants, Weaver described newcomers to the United States as "adventurous risk takers" who risked a lot in search of a better future. Most intermarried fairly quickly with other ethnic groups (for example, one third of today’s Asian- and Hispanic-Americans marry outside their own ethnic groups), adopted English as a common language and attended the same public schools.

The only thing they shared was their “American” identity, Weaver said.

Even so, racism and slavery persisted. Both American Indians and African Americans often were denied opportunities afforded others, he noted.

Weaver distinguished between adapting to American culture and giving up one's own unique cultural heritage. "It's not an either/or situation," he said. "You can be both … an Italian-American, Muslim-American and an Asian-American."

The children and grandchildren of immigrants increasingly adopt English as their primary language. Less than half the children of Hispanic immigrants can speak Spanish, he observed.

As a result of this rich diversity, today's young Americans are “accustomed to dealing with people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds." Even though the minority of Americans do not travel abroad, they have ample opportunity to experience different cultures. Weaver noted that Chicago and the state of Michigan are home to more Lebanese than Beirut, Lebanon, and more Samoans live in Los Angeles than in Samoa.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2050 non-Hispanic white people will comprise about 50 percent of the American population, compared with almost 70 percent today.

Btw, thank you all for contributing your opinions on this thread. Continue to give your 2 cents!




[edit on 10-10-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I believe that Anglo culture is very diverse. However, a lot of attention has been paid to their diversity through emphasis of the different ethnicities within it.

However, that same attention isn't paid to the cultures that don't fit into Anglo culture. This aspect was very problematic after 9/11. Because of the inability of some to try and understand the Muslim culture, for example, it was easier to assume that they were all "terrorists" who had a "jihad" when that wasn't the truth of those who practiced their faith and cultural practices while trying to live their daily lives in the United States.

Several Muslim groups have set up programs to get the American culture at large to understand their way of life to reduce the animus against them. But when you have the national leader talking about "Islamic Fascism" (which certainly doesn't exist), his words can only work against the acceptance of diversity in the case of Muslims.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by ceci2006]

So you are blaming Bush for people not understanding the muslim culture well enough and I think "Islamic Fascism" is a word that is a pretty good descriptor.

A word on so-called Islamic Fascism:

The origins of the term are unclear, but appear to date back to an article, "Construing Islam as a language", by Malise Ruthven that appeared on September 8, 1990 in The Independent, where he wrote:

Nevertheless there is what might be called a political problem affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non-Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say Islamo-fascism, is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan.

The Guardian attributes the term to an article by Muslim scholar Khalid Duran in the Washington Times, where he used it to describe the push by some Islamist clerics to "impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry".

British journalist Christopher Hitchens used the term "Islamic fascism" or "theocratic fascism" to describe the fatwa declared on February 14, 1989 by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses, an event that was pivotal in shaping the attitude toward Islamism of Hitchens and several other prominent journalists on the left.

So the term does have specific meaning and it's also been around since before 9/11 and Bush. The way Bush and company are using it, however, is as a "spooky-scary" to get us to be afraid of the people they disagree with.

If you take the term Fascism, which is defined as:

"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)

or

Fascism
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

... and add that the government gets its severe social rules directly from the religion of Islam, I don't see why you couldn't call some countries' form of government Islamic Fascism. Take Iran for example. And, although Bush wouldn't agree, Saudi Arabia's government could also be described as Islamic Fascism.

But that's not the way Bush is using the term. He has his own special meaning, which accents the "Islamic" part of the equation to get us all shaking in our boots.

Originally quoted by spinstopsphere

So you are blaming Bush for people not understanding the muslim culture well enough and I think "Islamic Fascism" is a word that is a pretty good descriptor.

This comes out of the Bloomington Herald:

Anti-Muslim feelings rising

Making matters worse for local Muslims, said Anderson, is a growing mistrust of Muslims across the U.S. "Fear mongering from the media and politicians just makes it worse," she said. "There is a general weariness in the Muslim community about being exposed to prejudice and stereotyping by the media and public." Anderson cited a July 2006 Gallup poll showing that 39 percent of Americans say they have anti-Muslin feelings, 34 percent think Muslims are sympathetic to al-Qaida, and 22 percent would not like to have a Muslim neighbor.

"It's painful to think there might be someone on our street who doesn't want us as neighbors," she said. "And it hurts to think people believe Islam teaches hatred and violence."

Whenever a Muslim group does something violent somewhere in the world, Anderson said, Bloomington Muslims do two things — condemn the violence and be on the lookout for local hate crimes. Beverly Calender-Anderson, director of the Safe and Civil City Program, said she was saddened to hear that so many local Muslims live in fear.
[...]
She said a Saudi couple was recently shopping at a local supermarket with their four children. The wife was wearing a scarf and face veil.

"A man came up to her husband and began shouting in his face, saying, 'This is America; why are you making your wife dress like that?'"

Anderson said the woman was too frightened to tell the man she was wearing the garb not because of her husband's demands, but as an expression of modesty and humility before God.

This comes from ABC news right after Mr. Bush uttered the term in one of his earlier speeches:

'Islamophobia' Felt 5 Years After 9/11


Some Arab Americans say President Bush has further stoked anti-Muslim attitudes with inflammatory rhetoric in denouncing Islamic extremists. In a recent speech, he said, "They try to spread their jihadist message, a message I call 'Islamic fascism.' "

Anti-Islamic sentiment rises when Muslims are implicated in a terrorist plot or act, such as the London subway bombings in 2005.

"For many , it's a challenge to distinguish between what some people do and the religion itself," Esposito said.

"I think that more generally speaking, America is not Islamophobic," said Dr. James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute. "It really just doesn't understand the religion at all."

For many Americans, their attitude toward Islam and Muslims remains a tug of war between fear and fairness.

"We're Americans," Houssaiky said. "We're living the American dream. We're doing everything everybody does. There's no reason to be scared of us."

Maybe these two pieces can shed light on aspects regarding the climate of diversity after 9/11.


[edit on 10-10-2006 by ceci2006]

In my readings regarding this topic, I pulled a few articles that are fascinating.


The first article has to deal with diversity within Seattle. I am not a fan of D'nesh D'Souza, but this is an article that is framed around a talk he was supposed to give at a school in the city. It is quite interesting to hear both sides of the debate This is from the Seattle Weekly:

Trouble in Vanilla City

The honest discussion of racial issues here is difficult in part because it begins from a commonly held assumption among whites that the ideal society is a raceless society. If race doesn't—or shouldn't—matter, then focusing on race is a distraction. White conservatives often believe this as a matter of principle, viewing America as a kind of equal opportunity meritocracy. White liberals, on the other hand, are eager to focus on how pretty the rainbow is and that we're all the same inside. The real translation is that underneath dark skin there is a white person who is eager to get out. The more minorities "act white," the more accepted they are by the mainstream. Such views downplay the life-shaping importance of racial experience.

Another conversation stopper is the idea that race can only be discussed in positive terms or on terms that are acceptable to whoever feels racially oppressed. Since whites generally view themselves as not having race, racial discussion is either seen as for minorities only or as a guilt-inducing lecture by the victims of racism.

Conversations happen, though. Usually when something blows up. This tends to occur where people are openly struggling with ideas, namely, in the microcosm of an academic institution. Earlier this spring, there was a mess at Cornish College of the Arts after three white drama students performed a skit satirizing the Civil Rights movement. Dressed in clown costumes, they lampooned Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and others in a way a number of students and faculty—white and black—found offensive. They portrayed lunch-counter activists demanding watermelon and chitlins. The students were allegedly striving for a kind of irony, without realizing, apparently, that Seattle is the most irony-challenged town on the West Coast. Add that to racially clueless.

The Detroit News featured an in-depth series about the changing racial make-up of different neighborhoods in the city. Although each article is quite important in its own right, I think that this article in question is fascinating because it discusses the transformation racially of one particular area due to conceptions of belief regarding what is "diversity" opposed to what "isn't."

The question that should be asked if one shouldn't "see the color of another" and basically "we're all human beings", then why are people moving somewhere else?

Dramatic racial turnover alters face of Southfield

For 50 years, James Lumzy has watched white families climb into moving vans. From the Detroit neighborhood where he grew up to the leafy Southfield subdivision where he's lived for three years, the retired auto parts worker has seen whites move away as he and other blacks have moved into the bigger, nicer, safer homes all families want.

"They think blacks bring property values down," he said -- before ticking off the thousands of dollars he's plowed into a new roof, furnace and air conditioning system since moving in. "I don't know what to think." Lumzy is at the center of Metro Detroit's latest wave of white flight and rapid neighborhood turnover. Southfield -- a pioneer of the auto-friendly, subdivision-and-office-tower lifestyle that signifies the American suburb -- is now more than 50 percent black, a rapid transformation for a city that in 1980 was 88 percent white.

What's happening, historians and demographers say, is a collision of all the factors that combine to make Metro Detroit the most segregated region in the country: white reluctance to live in areas with large black populations; black demand for cities and neighborhoods seen as less hostile to their presence; and black reluctance to move into neighborhoods without a significant black presence. Southfield helps explain why, despite large increases in the suburban black population in the 1990s, Metro Detroit's segregation level dropped only slightly.

This last excerpt comes from North Dakota State University Magazine. It talks about the plight of diversity:

Diversity

Efforts to promote diversity face challenges, not the least of which is that while some words are easy to define, others mean very different things to different people. Diversity is such a word.

"What we all know, if we think about it for only half a second, that we are all individuals different from each other in some ways. Whether that's the color of our eyes or how tall we are, what we like to eat or what kind of clothes we like. There's overlap among all of us humans in many of those areas, but there's also individual difference. The issue about group difference - racial groups, gender groups, groups based on one's physical or mental ability or disability - is that we've come to make assumptions about people based on their group membership.

"We don't think about white folks as a group. We think about white folks as individuals. But when we think about black folk or Hispanic folk or Native American folk, there's a huge tendency to think of an individual with all the group characteristics. And, of course, all the group characteristics aren't typical of any one individual in any one of those groups. But groups share some characteristics that tend to predominate our thinking. When we judge people based on their group membership instead of their individuality, then that's when prejudice and discrimination come into play. Particularly because most of the stereotypes about those traditionally excluded and underrepresented groups are negatives, they are not positives.

"It is not popular these days to admit that we have prejudices and biases and that we operate out of our stereotypes. We know intellectually that's not supposed to happen. It's hard to confront that it does happen because we want to be good people. People who have been excluded, for every good reason, want a change. They want justice now, not 20 years from now when we can all get it straight. There is a tension between the good hearted but still well-socialized mainstream folks and the people who know they've been mostly shut out and want to be a part of the American dream."

What do you guys think about these articles?




[edit on 12-10-2006 by ceci2006]

I think the articles are only about Blacks and Whites...

Are you discussing diversity as a whole, or are you discussing racial issues specific to Black and White Americans?

Semper

Diversity has been all around us since the founding of the first colonies, be they Spanish, or English, or Dutch, or even the Norse. Diversity is not equality, not in any shape or form, it can be equal, but its not required. That is what the Rev. King and others have fought and died for: Equality, not diversity. If you have equality, diversity will follow...if you have diversity, equality doesn't always follow.

Diversity in America is treated as the be all end all. If we have diversity, everyone will be happy, happy, happy. What they really mean is if we are all equal before the Law, we'll be happy, happy, happy. Diversity without equality is a meaningless and futile concept.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by seagull]

Originally quoted by semperfortis

Are you discussing diversity as a whole, or are you discussing racial issues specific to Black and White Americans?

I am discussing diversity as a whole. In fact, the previous subject on this thread was about Muslims. Diversity--as defined above--does not concentrate solely on race. It also features religion, gender, cultue, ethnicity as well as sexual orientation. It also envelops other things related to the differentiation of groups within America.

In fact, in the OP, I opened the issue to everyone. All posters were asked to define what diversity means to them as well as how diversity is treated in America.

If you could find articles related to diversity, please feel free to post them.

Otherwise, I chose articles that specifically addressed how certain groups treated diversity in America as well as how theorists and scholars defined the term.

You may have your criticisms. However, you have the freedom to discuss diversity any way you like--unless you only wanted to focus on diversity issues between Whites and Blacks. That is just as fine in a topic such as this.

As for myself, I will discuss all issues related to diversity to others who would like to speak about it. With that being said, I thank seagull for giving his two cents on the issue. He stated a pretty nice definition of diversity in his point of view. He is thinking about the subject and answering the question so there will be a plethora of thought related simply to the issue of diversity.

I will not entertain or address issues related to the personality or posting style of not only myself or others on this thread. Just a friendly admonition.


[edit on 12-10-2006 by ceci2006]

Above all else, this statement from the articles above, should be read once again:

"We don't think about white folks as a group. We think about white folks as individuals. But when we think about black folk or Hispanic folk or Native American folk, there's a huge tendency to think of an individual with all the group characteristics. And, of course, all the group characteristics aren't typical of any one individual in any one of those groups. But groups share some characteristics that tend to predominate our thinking. When we judge people based on their group membership instead of their individuality, then that's when prejudice and discrimination come into play. Particularly because most of the stereotypes about those traditionally excluded and underrepresented groups are negatives, they are not positives.

I will not entertain or address issues related to the personality or posting style of not only myself or others on this thread. Just a friendly admonition.

Here we go again.

I was simply asking a question.

Semper