“On Diversity” - By, Cliff Tomb

I am confused and perplexed how the word “Diversity” is still being used and promoted in Western lexicon. Moreover, how during these devastating virus plaguing times how groups of people still feel it necessary to proudly display and promote it as if it was an appropriate calling card. (I mean, both “divisiveness” and “diversity” carry the same prefix.) First, let us define what the use, or this intention, means. Merriam-Webster defines it as, ‘the condition of having, or being composed of, differing elements. The inclusion of people of different races, cultures, etc. in a group or organization’. That is truly amenable, and lovely, but on the flip-side, it can be a cloaked element in trying to gain more power over a perceived party. 

Western cities such as London, New York, Paris, Chicago, and San Francisco, have now all had “diverse” mayors, or those leaders who are not from an Anglo-Saxon or white persuasion or heritage. For example, the United States has now seen its first black President, first female non-white Vice President, and now first female Congressional House Speaker and V.P. both flanking the President during an official address. We now see American Muslim congressional leaderships, and other representative ethnicities, which only further cements that the West is leading the way in cultural and literal human diversity. If diversity is to describe how the West was, and has been, a historically and predominantly white dominated land, has it not changed within these many decades and years? 

Obviously, after the vanquishment of slavery, the implementation of equal and fair employment, housing, etc. has the West not already developed into a diverse citizenry? However, if the term’s only current intent is to further alienate, isolate, segregate and separate, then I believe it’s purpose is back-firing.

This author tries not to unfairly compare and contrast, but it is difficult not to be honest. How many Christian, white, gays, or other “diverse” leaders are in the likes of Asia, the Congo, the Middle East, or even Russia? Why is that only Westerners need be always reminded of the beneficial and benevolent aspects of a “diverse” world? This, especially when it appears to go against the large majority of democratic principles based and founded on terms such as freedoms, equality and fairness. These were designed not just for a select few, but for everyone. Instead, the West is continuously bombarded by self-interests and proclaiming “diverse” groups. As written before, when do these divisive and separative terms fade away? These clamoring diversity seekers all sound like dividing peddling propagandists pitting one side, or group of people, against another. 

As noted, ‘what makes the West great, is what also makes it fallible’ as the likes of the aforementioned homogenous Africas, Asias, the Middle East, and Russias, only continue laughing at the West’s inner turmoil. I mean, what is the end-goal of this “diversity” movement? Is there, or will there be an end? These of course are now philosophic and futuristic issues. However, it seems as though this term and others, which were once used for good purposes, are now only dividing already divided nations. This anathema against allowing people to make their own choices and self-determinations in whom they socialise and work. It compels and forces otherwise.

Why I realize those who may still use and refer to this diversity may feel ancestrally or currently disenfranchised, or forgotten, what 2021 purpose does it truly now hold, or serve?Are we trying to achieve something that we are undeserved for in grasping for placement or advancement based on credit, not merit? Will the West inevitably become a “Creditocracy,” or the opposite of meritocracy in being based on a system or society where people are chosen and move into positions of success, power, and influence based on who they are and who they prefer having sex with rather than what they are? Again, I know, I know, Cliff you are a white, heterosexual, Cristian-faithed male in a lineage of white imperialist men who warred and pillaged much of the world, but that was, and is, now history. So then, what is this current “diversity” goal? To over-turn that history in ridding and condemning all white males? Will this term cease once we are diverse, and who will decide when that happens, or is? Or will it continue being used as a socio-political and power grabbing desire and tool? As in life, it’s a continued wait and see. 

It has gotten to the point that the large majority of the West is now so constantly reminded and inundated for calls to hire “diverse” peoples that talent and skillsets are forgotten and lost. We are constantly worried about offending, or the governmental or legal ramifications of not being a diverse company or firm. Maybe my viewpoint is slanted as I have lived in relatively racially harmonious Asia for a decade, and I am the minority. There are obviously few if any non-Asian politicians or government leaders. However, I am not compelled to protest governments by demanding and protesting my perceived “kind” get an immediate “seat at the table”. I believe as in life, we should let nature run its course, and not selfishly demand of others what we are unwilling to provide ourselves. 

While I absolutely agree that a nation’s social studies and history books should reflect its peoples, I don’t agree with government interventionism when it comes to private companies hiring and firing practices, or being forced to keep un-, or under-performing employees. Granted, much of the West has historically been through the unionized labouring wars and warfare against big businesses and bad bosses, but when government starts dictating whom, and what, you hire, that is yet another slippery slope in taking away more freedoms. Let us all be honest with ourselves, that this “diversity” word is a mechanism pitting one perceived people, race, gender, or creed, against what they believe as a controlling or oppressive established people, race, gender or creed. Or, it could just be a blatant cheap-trick to reap undeserved benefit.

I feel those who will read and view this piece as me being somehow racist, non-inclusionist, or not a diversity lover, are in effect that themselves. Diversity seems to only drive and force one person or people into a group, much like slavery has, and unfortunately in some parts of our world, still does. And while I understand the many ills-of-slavery and how some truly legitimate “African-Americans” whose ancestry was stolen and sold into it have legitimate grudges against oppressive systems, I do not agree with those who voluntarily choose their own religions, medically changed or enhanced genders, and sexual preferences, in advancing their own monetary, political or social standard in cajoling or forcing governmental or national “diversity” actions.