The desire for diversity is dividing us, causing distrust, conflict, less competency, and group rather than individual rights. It is creating a kaleidoscope of groups rather than one united nation.
We should all be bound by a common American identity, with ideals that are sharable, by pledging allegiance to the American flag only, speaking English, and by living according to the heritage of common American values.
Diversity does not celebrate common goals, common values or common aspirations. It emphasizes what you are rather than who you are. It embeds you in what “community” you belong to.
The media constantly plays up divisive identity by emphasizing race, thereby promoting the idea of separate groups. Doing so, it divides us from being “Americans” to identifying us as members of a minority or majority or some other category.
The U.S. Supreme Court has contributed to this division by ruling that diversity may be considered in determining admission into schools of higher education. Such rulings are nothing more than politically correct dedications to affirmative action, which is used to deny some and reward others solely on the basis of race.
Moreover, that court itself does not represent “diversity.” In a country with a Protestant plurality, not a single justice is Protestant. There never has been a Mormon, true evangelist, or “born again” justice. Court appointments made on the basis of being “African American” or “Puerto Rican” or a “woman,” etc., only serves to emphasize diversity rather than competency or qualification.
The disingenuous excuse that members of a minority or other categories of citizens need to feel they are not purposely excluded only serves to exacerbate division rather than commonality.
The “melting pot” of America, once a concept supporting integrating immigration, is being destroyed by the desire for diversity.
------------------------
Now for Mr. Heilman's Response(my comments in bold):
On Jan. 6, Jack Levitt wrote that diversity is dangerous to America (No, he never used the word "dangerous")
and that we need to get back to the melting-pot concept, melting pot meaning conforming to the white male dominated culture of pre-1960 America. (In a vain search for "dog whistles," Mr. Heilman imposes his talking point into Mr. Levitt's letter.)
I would suggest rather than melting pot, we use the metaphor of the stew pot or salad. (That is, a phrase in long use is not satisfactory.)
In those dishes each separate ingredient contributes to the goodness of the whole without losing its identity. (A distinction without a difference. In addition, Mr. Levitt made no statement about losing identity.)
But why this fear of diversity, (Typical leftist tactic, to impute fear into someone's motives. That is, Mr. Levitt can't possibly be offering a thoughtful, considered opinion of the situation. No, he must be acting on emotion, irrational, not thinking.)
of the new (to Mr. Levitt) and different? If a woman wearing a head scarf stands behind you in the check-out line at Town and Country, come on, what are the odds that she is wearing an explosive vest? (Running with his false characterization, he now suggests that Mr. Levitt's has irrational fear of a hypothetical situation unrelated to Mr. Levitt's discussion.)
Are those two men speaking Spanish at Wells Fargo really planning to rob you when you leave with your withdrawal? (Mr. Levitt is a bigot.)
If my very racially mixed family, Hispanic, African-America and white, sits next to yours at Ted’s, what threat do we present to your family? (Mr. Levitt did not indicate he was threatened.)
Mr. Levitt, reread the Declaration of Independence. (A document Mr. Heilman appears to be unfamiliar with.)
It proposes as a self evident truth that all people have the right to seek their happiness. (However, it does not say that all people have a right to seek their happiness in the US.)
Nowhere does it say that they have to conform to your culture or make you comfortable before they gain access to that right. (Nor would it. The document is a manifesto of freedom from goverment oppression. It does not speak to immigration, culture, or peoples' comfort.)
It is 2017, and we are a diverse society. (Mr. Heilman makes an assertion which is what Mr. Levitt wrote to contest.)
All the American citizens of Asian, African, Central American, Mexican, Middle Eastern and Indian ancestry are not “going back where they came from.” (Which of course Mr. Levitt never asserted.)
Deal with it. (Having failed to even address the topic offered by Mr. Levitt, Mr. Heilman gets belligerent. One might say that he is experiencing an emotional reaction, having dealt unsuccessfully, intellectually speaking, with the actual topic raised by Mr. Levitt.)
We should all be bound by a common American identity, with ideals that are sharable, by pledging allegiance to the American flag only, speaking English, and by living according to the heritage of common American values.
Diversity does not celebrate common goals, common values or common aspirations. It emphasizes what you are rather than who you are. It embeds you in what “community” you belong to.
The media constantly plays up divisive identity by emphasizing race, thereby promoting the idea of separate groups. Doing so, it divides us from being “Americans” to identifying us as members of a minority or majority or some other category.
The U.S. Supreme Court has contributed to this division by ruling that diversity may be considered in determining admission into schools of higher education. Such rulings are nothing more than politically correct dedications to affirmative action, which is used to deny some and reward others solely on the basis of race.
Moreover, that court itself does not represent “diversity.” In a country with a Protestant plurality, not a single justice is Protestant. There never has been a Mormon, true evangelist, or “born again” justice. Court appointments made on the basis of being “African American” or “Puerto Rican” or a “woman,” etc., only serves to emphasize diversity rather than competency or qualification.
The disingenuous excuse that members of a minority or other categories of citizens need to feel they are not purposely excluded only serves to exacerbate division rather than commonality.
The “melting pot” of America, once a concept supporting integrating immigration, is being destroyed by the desire for diversity.
------------------------
Now for Mr. Heilman's Response(my comments in bold):
On Jan. 6, Jack Levitt wrote that diversity is dangerous to America (No, he never used the word "dangerous")
and that we need to get back to the melting-pot concept, melting pot meaning conforming to the white male dominated culture of pre-1960 America. (In a vain search for "dog whistles," Mr. Heilman imposes his talking point into Mr. Levitt's letter.)
I would suggest rather than melting pot, we use the metaphor of the stew pot or salad. (That is, a phrase in long use is not satisfactory.)
In those dishes each separate ingredient contributes to the goodness of the whole without losing its identity. (A distinction without a difference. In addition, Mr. Levitt made no statement about losing identity.)
But why this fear of diversity, (Typical leftist tactic, to impute fear into someone's motives. That is, Mr. Levitt can't possibly be offering a thoughtful, considered opinion of the situation. No, he must be acting on emotion, irrational, not thinking.)
of the new (to Mr. Levitt) and different? If a woman wearing a head scarf stands behind you in the check-out line at Town and Country, come on, what are the odds that she is wearing an explosive vest? (Running with his false characterization, he now suggests that Mr. Levitt's has irrational fear of a hypothetical situation unrelated to Mr. Levitt's discussion.)
Are those two men speaking Spanish at Wells Fargo really planning to rob you when you leave with your withdrawal? (Mr. Levitt is a bigot.)
If my very racially mixed family, Hispanic, African-America and white, sits next to yours at Ted’s, what threat do we present to your family? (Mr. Levitt did not indicate he was threatened.)
Mr. Levitt, reread the Declaration of Independence. (A document Mr. Heilman appears to be unfamiliar with.)
It proposes as a self evident truth that all people have the right to seek their happiness. (However, it does not say that all people have a right to seek their happiness in the US.)
Nowhere does it say that they have to conform to your culture or make you comfortable before they gain access to that right. (Nor would it. The document is a manifesto of freedom from goverment oppression. It does not speak to immigration, culture, or peoples' comfort.)
It is 2017, and we are a diverse society. (Mr. Heilman makes an assertion which is what Mr. Levitt wrote to contest.)
All the American citizens of Asian, African, Central American, Mexican, Middle Eastern and Indian ancestry are not “going back where they came from.” (Which of course Mr. Levitt never asserted.)
Deal with it. (Having failed to even address the topic offered by Mr. Levitt, Mr. Heilman gets belligerent. One might say that he is experiencing an emotional reaction, having dealt unsuccessfully, intellectually speaking, with the actual topic raised by Mr. Levitt.)
No comments:
Post a Comment