For years the statement of......

[civilwarbuff]

....."strength through diversity" or we are made stronger through our diverisity has been "preached" to Americans, primarily from the left. Is it true; does diversity make us stronger or does it divide us....make us take positions against each other? If it makes us stronger, how does it do that? And lets use this for the definition of diversity:
Simple Definition of diversity

: the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.

: the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It depends...there are two kinds of diversity.

A nation can be a melting pot... or a tossed salad.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It depends...there are two kinds of diversity.

A nation can be a melting pot... or a tossed salad.

I agree....for decades since the founding of the US we have always been referred to as a melting pot. It was assumed that newcomers would assimilate into the culture; the culture would shift somewhat over time due to the newcomers. The salad approach assumed the various cultures remain relatively distinct within the larger framework of society. It seems, at least to me, that the current statement of strength in diversity refers to the salad concept. So, taking this POV do we have strength in diversity with different cultures remaining (or attempting to remain) static within the larger framework of American society? Or is there a larger downside to this concept?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Scripturally I think diversity has never made anyone nor any group nor any country stronger nor better.

Is there any good example that it ever did ?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree....for decades since the founding of the US we have always been referred to as a melting pot. It was assumed that newcomers would assimilate into the culture; the culture would shift somewhat over time due to the newcomers.

The real kick in the pants is that the US gets scrutinized for things that Euro nations get a pass on in that regard.

For example...people will act as if a US citizen who's of the "English should be the official language", and "we should be stricter about immigration" is some sort of hate filled bigot...

Nobody calls Germans or French racists for mandating that knowing their language is a requirement for citizenship.

...yet, France has policies that are far stricter than anything we have in that regard, and they're viewed as a "beacon of progressive enlightenment" by many on the left...even though their requirements are, you have to be gainfully employed for 12 years and be able to be fluent in French before they'll allow you to be a citizen.

 

[Redac]

I don't think "diversity", especially when it's encouraged for its own sake and for no other reason, necessarily makes a country stronger.

 

[Chesterton]

Etymology is our friend: "div" is usually no good:

Divorce, divide, divagate

diversity (n.)
mid-14c., "quality of being diverse," mostly in a neutral sense, from Old French diversité (12c.) "difference, diversity, unique feature, oddness:" also "wickedness, perversity," from Latin diversitatem (nominative diversitas) "contrariety, contradiction, disagreement;" also, as a secondary sense, "difference, diversity," from diversus "turned different ways" (in Late Latin "various"), past participle of divertere (see divert).

divert (v.)
early 15c., from Middle French divertir (14c.), from Latin divertere "to turn in different directions," blended with devertere "turn aside," from dis- "aside" and de- "from" + vertere "to turn" (see versus). Related: Diverted; diverting


diverge (v.)
1660s, from Modern Latin divergere "go in different directions," from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + vergere "to bend, turn" (see verge (v.)). Originally a term in optics; the figurative sense is 19c. Related: Diverged; diverging.

divers (adj.)
mid-13c., "not alike" (sense now in diverse); late 13c., "separate, distinct; various," from Old French divers (11c.) "different, various, singular, odd, exceptional, wretched, treacherous, perverse," from Latin diversus "turned different ways," in Late Latin "various," past participle of divertere (seedivert)

diverse (adj.)
c. 1300, spelling variant of divers (q.v.), perhaps by analogy with converse, traverse, etc. In some cases directly from Latin diversus, and since c. 1700 restricted to the meaning "different in character or quality." Related: Diversely.
diversion (n.)
early 15c., "diverse condition;" c. 1600 "act of diverting," from Middle French diversion, from Late Latin diversionem (nominative diversio), noun of action from past participle stem of Latin divertere (see divert).

Sense of "amusement, entertainment" is first recorded 1640s. Hence, divertimento (1823), from the Italian form; originally "a musical composition designed primarily for entertainment."
divert (v.)
early 15c., from Middle French divertir (14c.), from Latin divertere "to turn in different directions," blended with devertere "turn aside," from dis- "aside" and de- "from" + vertere "to turn" (see versus). Related: Diverted; diverting.
diverticulum (n.)
"blind tube" (anatomical), 1819, Modern Latin, from Latin deverticulum "a bypath," from devertere "to turn aside" (see divert).
divest (v.)
1560s, devest (modern spelling is c. 1600), from Middle French devester "strip of possessions," from Old French desvestir, from des- "away" (see dis-) +vestir "to clothe" (see vest (v.)).

The figurative sense of "strip of possessions" is earliest in English; reflexive sense of "to strip oneself of" is from c. 1600. Economic sense (implied indivestment) is from 1955. Related: Divested; divesting.divide (v.)
early 14c., from Latin dividere "to force apart, cleave, distribute," from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + -videre "to separate," from PIE root *weidh- "to separate" (see widow; also see with).

Mathematical sense is from early 15c. Divide and rule (c. 1600) translates Latin divide et impera, a maxim of Machiavelli. Related: Divided; dividing.

Also, a dive bar: a place you oughtn't be.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I think people get fears that when huge numbers of a culture we aren't too familiar with make mass droves into our country we get fearful that they will never assimilate. We did it with the Chinese and the Irish. They are as American as anybody now. People are afraid of our culture being overtaken, but so far that hasn't happened yet. We just take what we like from the culture and throw out the rest as they slowly become assimilated. Maybe people don't like the fact that it takes a couple generations before we see results. Its not my fault you're impatient.

 

[Paidiske]

I originally trained as a geneticist, so part of me thinks about this through that lens.

And in genetic terms, diversity is a very very good thing indeed, because it means that the population is more resilient. Because you cannot predict what challenges the population will face, having population members with different strengths makes it more likely that at least some of the population will survive any challenge.

Now, when we're talking social/cultural diversity, we're not usually talking survival the way we are with, say, tolerance to extreme temperatures; but it seems to me that we can extrapolate the principle.

We don't know what challenges our society and culture will face, but if we have a diverse range of social understandings and cultural approaches and ways of thinking, and so on, it is more likely that one of the different groups in our overall population will have something which will be useful in the face of whatever does challenge us. If we are all the same, we very much reduce the likelihood that someone will be able to engage in the kind of different or creative thinking which will be able to respond to a new challenge as needed.

In that way I see diversity as key to resilience (on a population level).

 

[Redac]

Now, when we're talking social/cultural diversity, we're not usually talking survival the way we are with, say, tolerance to extreme temperatures; but it seems to me that we can extrapolate the principle.

We don't know what challenges our society and culture will face, but if we have a diverse range of social understandings and cultural approaches and ways of thinking, and so on, it is more likely that one of the different groups in our overall population will have something which will be useful in the face of whatever does challenge us. If we are all the same, we very much reduce the likelihood that someone will be able to engage in the kind of different or creative thinking which will be able to respond to a new challenge as needed.

In that way I see diversity as key to resilience (on a population level).

Diversity of what kind? And to what extent?

 

[civilwarbuff]

We don't know what challenges our society and culture will face, but if we have a diverse range of social understandings and cultural approaches and ways of thinking, and so on, it is more likely that one of the different groups in our overall population will have something which will be useful in the face of whatever does challenge us. If we are all the same, we very much reduce the likelihood that someone will be able to engage in the kind of different or creative thinking which will be able to respond to a new challenge as needed.

But would it not be better to respond to different cultures/societies as an American culture/society as opposed to the "flavor of week" so to speak. Then other cultures/societies will understand what they can expect from us as they deal with us and us with them. Understanding of different cultures/societies should never be a one way street; we need to understand where others come from but others need to understand us also. A consistent approach on how we deal with people can provide that......

 

[Nithavela]

Etymology is our friend: "div" is usually no good:

Divorce, divide, divagate

diversity (n.)
mid-14c., "quality of being diverse," mostly in a neutral sense, from Old French diversité (12c.) "difference, diversity, unique feature, oddness:" also "wickedness, perversity," from Latin diversitatem (nominative diversitas) "contrariety, contradiction, disagreement;" also, as a secondary sense, "difference, diversity," from diversus "turned different ways" (in Late Latin "various"), past participle of divertere (see divert).

divert (v.)
early 15c., from Middle French divertir (14c.), from Latin divertere "to turn in different directions," blended with devertere "turn aside," from dis- "aside" and de- "from" + vertere "to turn" (see versus). Related: Diverted; diverting


diverge (v.)
1660s, from Modern Latin divergere "go in different directions," from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + vergere "to bend, turn" (see verge (v.)). Originally a term in optics; the figurative sense is 19c. Related: Diverged; diverging.

divers (adj.)
mid-13c., "not alike" (sense now in diverse); late 13c., "separate, distinct; various," from Old French divers (11c.) "different, various, singular, odd, exceptional, wretched, treacherous, perverse," from Latin diversus "turned different ways," in Late Latin "various," past participle of divertere (seedivert)

diverse (adj.)
c. 1300, spelling variant of divers (q.v.), perhaps by analogy with converse, traverse, etc. In some cases directly from Latin diversus, and since c. 1700 restricted to the meaning "different in character or quality." Related: Diversely.
diversion (n.)
early 15c., "diverse condition;" c. 1600 "act of diverting," from Middle French diversion, from Late Latin diversionem (nominative diversio), noun of action from past participle stem of Latin divertere (see divert).

Sense of "amusement, entertainment" is first recorded 1640s. Hence, divertimento (1823), from the Italian form; originally "a musical composition designed primarily for entertainment."
divert (v.)
early 15c., from Middle French divertir (14c.), from Latin divertere "to turn in different directions," blended with devertere "turn aside," from dis- "aside" and de- "from" + vertere "to turn" (see versus). Related: Diverted; diverting.
diverticulum (n.)
"blind tube" (anatomical), 1819, Modern Latin, from Latin deverticulum "a bypath," from devertere "to turn aside" (see divert).
divest (v.)
1560s, devest (modern spelling is c. 1600), from Middle French devester "strip of possessions," from Old French desvestir, from des- "away" (see dis-) +vestir "to clothe" (see vest (v.)).

The figurative sense of "strip of possessions" is earliest in English; reflexive sense of "to strip oneself of" is from c. 1600. Economic sense (implied indivestment) is from 1955. Related: Divested; divesting.divide (v.)
early 14c., from Latin dividere "to force apart, cleave, distribute," from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + -videre "to separate," from PIE root *weidh- "to separate" (see widow; also see with).

Mathematical sense is from early 15c. Divide and rule (c. 1600) translates Latin divide et impera, a maxim of Machiavelli. Related: Divided; dividing.

Also, a dive bar: a place you oughtn't be.

Divinity.

 

[Chesterton]

Divinity.

Points to the Triune God. (I said "usually" no good.)

 

[Hetta]

I agree....for decades since the founding of the US we have always been referred to as a melting pot. It was assumed that newcomers would assimilate into the culture;

The Europeans did not assimilate into the existing culture of the country when they came here, so why should anyone else?

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Europeans did not assimilate into the existing culture of the country when they came here, so why should anyone else?

So the Irish, Germans and Italians never assimilated (to name a few of the largest groups)?

 

[Deviant Writer]

The real kick in the pants is that the US gets scrutinized for things that Euro nations get a pass on in that regard.

For example...people will act as if a US citizen who's of the "English should be the official language", and "we should be stricter about immigration" is some sort of hate filled bigot...

Nobody calls Germans or French racists for mandating that knowing their language is a requirement for citizenship.

...yet, France has policies that are far stricter than anything we have in that regard, and they're viewed as a "beacon of progressive enlightenment" by many on the left...even though their requirements are, you have to be gainfully employed for 12 years and be able to be fluent in French before they'll allow you to be a citizen.

I don't mind English being a requirement for citizenship. It's just that on the other side of the coin, there are people on the far right that scream about how there shouldn't be hardly any immigration at all, particularly of people who are non-white. There's even a guy on this forum that is like that.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

How does one define current American culture, so that one knows what to assimilate into?

 

[Hetta]

So the Irish, Germans and Italians never assimilated (to name a few of the largest groups)?

They did not assimilate, no. They wiped out the native Americans and imposed their own culture. Maybe newer cultures think they should do the same thing.

 

[civilwarbuff]

.

 

[civilwarbuff]

They did not assimilate, no. They wiped out the native Americans and imposed their own culture. Maybe newer cultures think they should do the same thing.

You go read some history then come back here and we can talk.....