- This topic has 6 voices and 46 replies.
-
Posts
-
Since the decade of Love in the 60's the idea of diversity for diversities sake has taken hold of some members of American society. While some forms of diversity can be good by exposing people to new ideas and encouraging a questing intellectual ferment. Is diversity good just because it increases diversity? In other words, can diversity be a destabilizing element in society? I would say yes. Different is not always good, in fact, sometimes different is downright damaging. I would further argue that diversity, as it is advocated today, is actually damaging to America. Mainly because it encourages various groups to actively oppose integration in wider society thus contributing to the fragmenting of society and body politic of the nation.I am curious to hear the views of others on this forum. Am I trending in the right direction or am I totally wrong here?
Mainly because it encourages various groups to actively oppose integration
I think you nailed it right there.IMO, diversity and even multiculturalism is fine. Our country began with various groups of people from Eastern Europeans to Western Europeans (say what you will, but those are two vastly different cultures) and from Asians to Hispanics. What's different from today, is that all these various groups came together to form one country and although they kept some of their ethnic and religious backgrounds, they assimilated by speaking the same language and sharing the same values. They came to America because they wanted a new and better life. Nowadays, we still have the same ethnical variations entering the country(which is fine) but the new people are choosing to remain separate and not become Americans. A Hispanic person comes and he/she wants to bring along his country's traditions but refuses to adapt to our country. They come here because it is a better life, but yet will not even try to learn English and they come here not to better themselves, but to exploit the opportunities. That I have a problem with. I also have a problem that we spend so much money and effort accomodating their wishes and demands. If your child is going to school in America, then he better know how to speak, read, and write English. But no, we don't do that now. Instead we either hire Spanish-speaking teachers or force teachers to learn Spanish. What we should do is force the parents to teach their children our language and ban them from attending school until they are able to understand the teacher.
These thoughts are ones I have held and wondered about for some time now. Why is diversity any better than homogeneity? I would think that the two would be equal in the general sense, neither being superior to the other. Yet for some reason modern society has assumed that diversity is superior, despite the lack of convincing evidence. On a cultural level, can we answer the question of which is better? I'm not so sure. Whereas diversity creates the potential for a multiplicity of ways to solve problems or find meaning and truth in life, it also creates the potential for lack of agreement in solutions and the deprivation of finding any meaning or truth in life. Homogeneity provides unity, yet it can also lead to isolationism. One thing is pretty certain: the success of the modern idea of "diversity" has created new problems even as it has attempted to solve others.
Diveristy is fine but integration should be the goal. Many immigrant groups in America, legal or otherwise, refuse to integrate. I like to say they are in American society but not OF American society. They form little enclaves that do not take part in the wider economic and social life of the country. I see leftist diversity as a dangerous thing. Sadly, if anyone says this they are lambasted as racist elitists. I make the point constantly in conversation that diversity and multiculturalism are destructive forces as currently defined. Multiculturalism is always destructive. any nation only has room for one culture although room for many cultural ancestries is available. Absent a common ethical view haw can any legal system survive? the answer is, it cannot. We are witnessing the destruction of America and a replay of the latter years of the Roman empire in America. And there is little we can do because the forces od divisiveness are stronger than the voices of reason and the sanctity of our cultural heritage. The very founding documents of our nation are being used to destroy it.
I think a lot depends on how you define ?diversity?. Increasing diversity has been a rather ?hot? topic at the place I work. Is diversity defined along racial and ethnic lines, or along gender lines? How about along experiential lines? If we all come from the same experiential backgrounds, then regardless of ethnicity and gender, we all have the same basic approach to and solution to problems. If a group is 48% male, 52% female; 60% Caucasian, 15% African-American, 15% Hispanic, and 10% Asian, but all of us came from upper-middle class backgrounds with Ivy League educations? Is that diversity? How about if we were all cops and came from families where our fathers and grandfathers were cops? Or if we were all farmers and came from families with agrarian heritage?Often, I think the definition of diversity is too shallow, based on gender and/or skin color only.Now, on a side note, going back to one of the posting above, I?m all in favor of hiring Spanish speaking / bilingual teachers in our public schools. As a matter of fact, I think it is essential. The question is, how are they to use those language skills? What better place than our public schools to insure that immigrant and non-native English speaking children learn to speak English and assimilate into our society? Parents most likely won?t take on that task ? so it may be the kids teaching the parents English if they are learning it in schools. Where it goes wrong is to do all instruction in a second language ? to give SOLs or other testing in languages other than English?.But, we can go a long, long way into discussions about the state of our public schools and education in America. I think that would deserve its own thread.
I think the definition of diversity is too shallow, based on gender and/or skin color only.
That is exactly how diversity is defined in contemporary society. We have replaced the aristocracy of merit with the aristocracy of color/ethnicity. If we had not, people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be out of business. I dont have a problem with teaching Spanish in schools, it should not be the primary language of instruction though.
But, we can go a long, long way into discussions about the state of our public schools and education in America. I think that would deserve its own thread.
That would probably need several threads. I will only say this. Since I moved to Germany, my son is going to german schools. He completed sixth grade in America and is retaking sixth grade in German schools. He is also at least a year behind his peers in some subjects, my wife and I, but mainly my wife, are spending on average four hours per day helping him get caught up and sending him to German Language tutoring on the weekends. All this and my son went to private Catholic schools for two of our three years in America. I could speak volumes about the sorry state of education in American schools, both public and private.
What better place than our public schools to insure that immigrant and non-native English speaking children learn to speak English and assimilate into our society?
At home, by parents or guardians would be the better place. I think even before a kid..any kid..enters kindergarten he should have a basic grasp on counting and the alphabet.Spanish teachers are an extra cost to the cities...or the taxpayers. So should we accomadate children of different religious backgrounds as well?
Parents most likely won?t take on that task
As cold as this sounds...Too bad. They have to.Now what about the workplace? Let's say management only speaks English. We hire a person who only speaks and understands a foreign language. We have to hire him otherwise we may have a discrimination case on our hands. Should we be required to hire a translator as well to accomodate this one person? Should all our safety signs now be bilingual? No way (IMO). If you want a job or want to go to school, then you need to learn our language. I don't care if you segregate yourself with the other and speak your native language with them. But if there's a fire in the building, you better know how to read the words "FIRE EXTINGUISHER" and follow the instructions (which are in English). My point is, when accomodating one person, we can put 30 other people at serious risk. Or, when one student needs to have the lesson translated, 29 other students fall behind.
The problem with multi-lingualism is that the US has no official language. Every time it is proposed it is shot down by liberals as being racist. Liberals and the diversity crowd have somehow transformed negative attitudes into positive traits.
I just don't see it as a racism issue. I see it as accomodating the few (or even one) at the expense of many more.
I was reminded today in a conversation at work about the old saying that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. Too many people in America don?t believe this anymore. That is why diversity and the multitude of ills that go along with promoting it are ultimately going to destroy America and Western culture as a whole. We are too busy inviting our enemies within our camp to even stop and realize that that is what is happening. People are being blinded worshipping at the twin altars of diversity and political correctness. It is no longer permissible to call a duck a duck; it is instead a buoyant, flight capable, quack machine or some such nonsense. Much like terrorists have been relabeled as freedom fighters, though I don?t know what freedoms Islamic terrorists are advocating for unless it is the right to repress whoever they want in whatever style they feel the Koran allows, even compels them to.
Parents most likely won?t take on that task
As cold as this sounds...Too bad. They have to.
Why stop there, why not have parents responsible for teaching science and math too? If they are not qualified to teach their kids English because they are struggling to learn it too an you require them to learn it well enough to teach it, then why not require them to learn science and math well enough to teach it to their kids too? In English of course.I know I'm stretching the point here - but I don't think that the U.S. can lose its character as a place for refugees to seek freedom and asylum. What I read is that you are basically saying it is okay to bring refugees to the US but they can't get a job or enroll their kids in school until they learn English?
Now what about the workplace? Let's say management only speaks English. We hire a person who only speaks and understands a foreign language. We have to hire him otherwise we may have a discrimination case on our hands. Should we be required to hire a translator as well to accomodate this one person? Should all our safety signs now be bilingual? No way (IMO). If you want a job or want to go to school, then you need to learn our language. I don't care if you segregate yourself with the other and speak your native language with them. But if there's a fire in the building, you better know how to read the words "FIRE EXTINGUISHER" and follow the instructions (which are in English).
I'd have to question why any company would hire someone that they couldn't communicate with. I've hired many refugees when I ran a manufacturing plant - working with the local Catholic Charities office, I'd hire teams of foriegn nationals with the understanding that at least the team leader spoke English. Generally, these were hard working folks - many of them professionals -who fled violence in their homelands. I had teams of Serbs, team of Croats, Nigerians, Liberians, Rwandans (Hutus and Tutsis), Somalis -- all working on the same factory floor. While I never integrated the teams - each had their own line to run - they got along well enough here even when back in their homeland their bretheren were trying to kill each other. These folks all had something in common - they fled terror and were looking for a better life. There were accountants and engineers working a production line for $8.50 an hour so that their kids could have a better future. Frequently they were working two jobs, and personally, I found their work ethic and integrity much better than many of the local "Americans" that held the same jobs (or tried to).
My point is, when accomodating one person, we can put 30 other people at serious risk. Or, when one student needs to have the lesson translated, 29 other students fall behind.
I think we need to make "reasonable accomodation" -- reasonable being the key word. We can't flush an entire class for one person, but neither can we flush a group of hard working and ambitious immigrants / refugees because a handful are working the system for all it's worth.
Here comes where I'd be considered a racist. A few minorities it seems just refuse to learn or teach their children English. On the other hand, I know many Portuguese whose parents don't have a solid grasp on the English language, they mainly speak Portuguese in their home and public, but know enough to be able to read important stuff like “Stop” “Yield” and other traffic or safety signs. However, of every Portuguese family I know whose parents don't know English, all their children do. Not most or some…but every.And maybe it's my age. I'm not ancient, but all this diversity crap seemed to happen in the past 10-15 years. Minority children who went to school when I did (many centuries ago), made the effort to learn our language. Yes, we had Spanish teachers but they taught Spanish. We did not have groups of kids who had to be taught separatly or needed some type of remedial work by teachers who speak (and teach) only their language. EVERY student spoke and was expected to know English. I guess, sadly, the times have changed.My answer to "how could a parent teach their kids a language they themselves do not know" would be hire a tutor to teach the kids.
I read somewhere that something like 90% of the children of immigrants are fluent in English. Personal experience bears this out. I have known several of my sons classmates in Texas whose parents only spoke Spanish but their children spoke English like Americans. I dont think it is the immigrants who do not want to integrate. It is the immigrant leadership such as La Raza etc that actively preach that integration is cultural surrender.What is missing in the debate is positive examples of immigrant communities that successfully integrated without losing their cultural heritage. Examples of this abound in America. There are huge communities of German, Irish, Scottish, English, Czech, Chinese, Greek, Indian, and Russian immigrants and others that have integrated into american society without losing sight of their cultural heritage. I am not arguing against immigrants, I am arguing that diversity without integration is a dead end street. It presages the Balkanization of America and future civil conflict. Any group that refuses to take part in wider society and instead chooses the path of insularity and isolation should be ejected and sent back from whence they came. That is true regardless of where they are from.We as a society have the duty to aid immigrants in integrating. That is what we have failed to do with the modern diversity drive. We, America, are the authors of this disaster, not the immigrant communities. Look to the leftists in academia and government if you want someone to blame. Government policy has made it possible for immigrants ot not integrate themselves and it is the removal of those policies that will force immigrants to assimilate if they want to be successful.
We as a society have the duty to aid immigrants in integrating. That is what we have failed to do with the modern diversity drive. We, America, are the authors of this disaster, not the immigrant communities.
That is SO true! But there are non-profit organizations available. At the International Institute of Rhode Island they assist immigrant families in finding a place to live, finding a legal job, and offer free tutoring to any family member in basic reading and writing skills. I've volunteered off and on for the past two years. What I admire most are those who want to learn English and become contributing members of American society..that's why they came here. I speak negatively about the ones who take advantage; the ones who are encouraged to come here because of the free health care or schooling and are told how to get a job so you don't have to report the income or pay taxes (so you can still get food stamps). These are the ones who refuse to go through the process of becoming a legal American citizen. I have no patience for that type. And the law is failing.
The system has been perverted by those who seek to exploit immigrants for cynical political gain. The immigrants are only too willing to be taken advantage of if it mean they get to come to America. The advocates of lawful, legal immigration have not dona an adequate job of stating their case. Of course, it seems that conservatives of any stripe have not done a very good job of stating their case since Reagan, “The Great Communicator”. Diversity, as currently defined in mainstream society, is destructive and not constructive. The big question is what message needs to be sent to get diversity back to its original message. I actually read something yesterday that claimed the melting pot was an offensive analogy because it assumed the sublimation of ones identity. I actually think the Melting pot analogy is very apt to explain what happened in 19th and early 20th century America. People became Americans without losing a sense of from whence they had come. That is what America needs to get back to.
