Most children have read (one hopes!) Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (and if you have not read it in a while, read it again; it will pay dividends). Our modern-day emperor (think of all those in positions of authority or influence within the media, politics, entertainment, academia, etc.) has no clothes either, but he continues to strut around like a peacock while all of his servants, that is, us, do him obeisance.
Because we do not wish to be thought of as stupid, we continue to bow the knee. Furthermore, we do not want to be regarded as morally evil. And since our modern-day swindlers have added moral depravity to the list of negative traits for those who cannot see the swindlers’ “priceless” clothing, we continue to scrape and grovel.
Indeed, we often purr our approval, as did the emperor’s old minister, when he saw no actual clothing: “Oh, it is very pretty, exceedingly beautiful. What a beautiful pattern, what brilliant colors! I shall tell the emperor that I like the cloth very much.”
One place that you can find the king parading around in all his naked glory is in academia. And one example of an invisible piece of cloth, designed, it can be argued, to cover the emperor’s backside, is the pretty slogan, “Diversity is our Strength!”
When I went to graduate school I saw this shibboleth plastered everywhere. It was stuck on the bumpers of cars. It was stuck on professors’ doors. It was used in conversation in half the classes that I took. Its content had been thoroughly absorbed by all, from the president of the university down to the lowly janitor. “Diversity is our Strength! Diversity is our Strength! Diversity is our Strength!”
And what if you happened to question this slogan? You would be instantly classified as evil, stupid, and unfit for any position that you occupied. You then would be persecuted (you might lose your job, for instance). I mean, diversity is our strength, right?
Let us use just one example to prove our point: The Jews. We know, don’t we, that the ancient Hebrews and Egyptians had a very cozy relationship? Was diversity the Egyptians’ strength? Or, consider the relationship between the Jews and the Canaanites. They got along swimmingly, right? By the way, when is the last time that you met a Canaanite? Indeed, the God of the Israelites does not seem to have had much appreciation for diversity:
When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you — Hittites,Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you — and hedelivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate them. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy! You must not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the Lord will erupt against you and he will quickly destroy you. Instead, this is what you must do to them: You must tear down their altars, shatter their sacred pillars, cut down their sacred Asherah poles, and burn up their idols. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. He has chosen you to be his people, prized above all others on the face of the earth.(Deuteronomy 7:1–4)
Additionally, we are cognizant that the Southern Kingdom, Judah had a very smooth relationship with their kin in the Northern Kingdom, Israel, the land of the ten tribes. And surely, the Assyrians and the Babylonians were on friendly terms with the Hebrews. Likewise, the great love between the Samaritans and the Jews has become proverbial (I think Jesus might have said a few things about it) (Luke 10:25–37). Clearly, the Jews considered the Samaritan contribution to diversity a valuable one (Ezra 4:1–24).
Further, are we not familiar with the ancient relationship between the Jews and the Christians? It established a reservoir of goodwill that lasts to this day. Similarly with the Romans, except for that destruction of Jerusalem thing. We also can recall that diversity was a strength in Alexandria, Egypt, where the Jews settled in large numbers alongside the Greeks, and in Cyprus, and in Cyrene, where the Jews exterminated the Roman and Greek population (i.e., the Kitos War). Yes, there was no friction at all, at least after the massacre.
But, assuredly, we do not have to restrict our historical inquiry to the Jews alone to demonstrate the truth of that malevolent banality, “Diversity is our Strength!” We can chose other examples as well. For example, is not everyone acquainted with the long history of concord and cooperation between Muslims and Christians? Or, for that matter, between Muslims and Muslims (e.g., Sunni and Shiite)? In fact, is it not true that wherever Muslims seem to go, they bring only sweetness and light? Remember that Iran used to be Zoroastrian, Israel Christian, and Byzantium Christian, prior to being conquered by the “enlightened” Muslims.
And we can all appreciate the fact that Blacks and Whites get along quite splendidly, but that Hispanics and Blacks get along even better! Undoubtedly, we all realize that the Irish love the English, that Catholics love the Protestants (e.g.,Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre), that Mormons adore the Christians, (e.g., Mountain Meadows Massacre), and that both Protestants and Catholicsdoted on the Mennonites.
If we are historically literate, cannot we recall the love between the Goth and the Roman, the Armenian and the Turk, the Hutu and the Tutsi, the Russian and the Pole, the Atheist and the Theist, the smart and the stupid, the rich and the poor, the Chinese and the Muslim, the French Canadian and the English Canadian, etc., etc., etc.
Hmm, come to think about it, what historical examples do we have that support the conclusion that racial and/or religious diversity is a strength to the nation in which these diversities reside? Indeed, do we have any examples of two or more truly diverse peoples living side by side not only peacefully, but where both groups actually strengthen each other (and without a unifying external threat)? Has such a state, if there ever was one, existed for any length of time?
Of course, it is all a lie. “Diversity is our Strength!” is a thunderously stupid and pernicious statement. The evidence for its truth is non-existent. Additionally, does not simple common sense indicate that it cannot be true? For example, would Saudi Arabians find strength with a million Mormons streaming into their country every year? No? How about a million Mexicans, even if they were Muslim? Would the Jews find strength with thousands more Samaritans, Arabs, or Christians in Israel? Does an increasingly diverse racial, cultural, and religious America strengthen, or weaken, a White, Christian America?
The reality of it is, of course, that diversity is not “our” strength if by “our” we mean any dominant racial or religious group, and if by “strength” we mean something that gives durability and unity to that dominant group.
Diversity is a strength, however, if by “our” we mean any competing, minority group and if by “strength” we mean something that allows the minority to gain the upper hand over the majority. The lie, then, comes from convincing those who are dominant that by weakening themselves they will be strong.
Consequently, diversity is a strength to the minority group that uses it, if only temporarily, as a sword to dissect the dominant group (in this case, White, Christian America). This allegiance to “diversity” is nothing but a mask for ethnic competition against the White majority.
In addition, this doctrine of diversity is inherently hypocritical. For, in order to stay diverse, each minority group must claim for itself a right that it does not grant to the majority. That is, the majority group is forced to allow itself to be repeatedly penetrated by the foreigner, without being able to either prevent the foreign intrusion or to colonize the lands of the foreigner in return. Nobody seems to think that there is a moral imperative for Korea or Zimbabwe to allow mass immigration that would swamp the native peoples.
In conclusion, it is instructive to note that at each stage in Andersen’s tale it became harder and harder for any adult to point out that the king had no clothes. If the king, for instance, was not so vain and greedy to begin with, the swindlers’ offer would not have appealed to him. Or, if his “old” and “honest” minister had more confidence in himself, he would have scoffed at the swindlers’ ridiculous imposture, and convinced the king that there were no clothes.
If the minister had done his duty, the king would have doubtless punished the swindlers, but, more importantly, he would not have lost a fortune, nor his honor.
What does it require to fight the swindlers? Courage and intelligence. We must not rely on the innocence and honesty of a young boy to speak the truth. As mature men and women, we must have the courage to do it ourselves.
Jack Spence (email him) is a family man, Westerner (with Southern sympathies!), and Protestant.