Recent articles about Arizona’s immigration laws have caused me to reflect on what America is all about [I have a feeling he isn't going to wax philosophical on the Bill of Rights.]. Anyone who has spent any time in New York City [NYC = America, I'm not surprised] must have seen what an incredible variety of races, religions and ethnic origins pass in review every day on its streets [And I'm sure he lives in a neighborhood filled with all sorts of "races, religions, and ethnic" groups]. You see all the elements that have made our country not only great in achievement but also a beacon and goal for so many people in so many other countries [Diversity equals achievement?].Notice the author provides not one substantial point within his stream of empty banalities. He just regurgitates catchphrases without actually referencing anything specific. Fittingly, the race hustlers disseminate their tripe by promoting empty arguments obscured by overwrought rhetoric. (Sound familiar?) Further, note how the actual consequences of diversity, namely a net loss in civic trust, pride, and collective social health, are simply ignored. And of course, only a bitter racist would question the notion that diversity automatically leads to achievement. But in the liberal creationist world of the NYT, the mere statement of a romantic idea underpins its veracity.
The energy [crime, and racial strife] that this wonderful variety of human beings creates for New York is the same energy created by their brothers and sisters throughout the United States. It is a delight to behold and a splendid commentary on what has made our country something so special [So our country was nothing special prior to the 1970's? Wait, don't answer that].
And note the despondent formulation of America as somehow empty prior to the great diversity movement. It's as if the brazen wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the wonderfully simple but brilliant system they concocted have nothing to do with America's singular success and value as a nation. America's Founding class is lauded only for permitting diversity, not for setting up a unique meritocracy and protecting the rights of Man.
But fortunately, such delusion can only exist if maintained by an impermeable vacuum. To individuals like the author, preached atop his Ivory Tower, he does this to buttress his social value as he needn't actually confront the real consequences of "diversity". But slowly, that bubble is bursting for the rest of us.
22 comments:
OneSTDV,
You make some very good points in your post today, and was in fact having a very similar conversation about the topic recently. It is a mistake to assume that diversity=good, or that only a particular type of diversity, ie racial or sex orientation, is legitimate. But perhaps the greatest and for guys like me, most deadliest assumption to make about NYC, is that it is some kind of cosmopolitatn mecca; it is not. Keep in mind, that one of the millions of immigrants who came by way of Ellis Island - Amadou Diallo - was killed on his doorstep by NYC's Finest what, a little over a dedcade ago?. NOT the Old South of the 1960s.
I don't claim to be an authority on the Big Apple, but I've spent and continue to spend considerable amounts of time there, and not just Manhattan and maybe a jaunt or two into Brooklyn or the Bronx - I mean, all of its boroughs. And I can disabuse anyone of any pie in the sky notions the NYT letter you referenced attempts to construct. NYC is every bit as hidebound to its primitive ways as anyone else, it's just been successful in putting accross the notion that it is otherwise. And people, particularly those of a certain stripe of posure and thought, lap it up.
It is very possible to live one's entire life on the Upper West Side and not ever come into contact with folk from Harlem; it is possible to do the same in Harlem and not ever come into contact with folk from Bensonhurst; and it is very possible to live the entirety of one's life in Chelsea and never venture into Queens.
Sure, if you're an artsy-hipster type who fancies him/herself as a "progressive" NYC is the place to be for no other reason that you can find a community of people just like you - but that's the point you make above - these people really aren't interested in "diversity" so much as theyr interested in being able to simply be among their own. That's perfectly OK, but the sense I get from you and quite a few other bloggers is that you guys are pissed off not only with the pretentiousness of these jokers, but also their sheer hypocrisy, since as so many of you rightly point out, one wouldn't catch any of these Paper Progressives dead out on Bushwick or Tremont Ave.
Eve Carson was your typical nice, young white liberal female diversity enthusiast, but sadly
she never got a chance to achieve her dream of "extending diversity week" at her University..
I usually don't bother replying here, but you may want to change the link in that "racial strife" link in the excerpt from the Times. I understand that you're arguing against diversity and the immigration that fuels it, but I suspect one would probably want to use an example of an immigrant group instead of the descendants of people that have been in this country since its founding which a sizable number being here before other white ethnic groups.
Disclaimer: Despite being black, I am the descendant of black immigrants from the Caribbean so I've probably ruined your country for the worse.
David, you are fond of making pity-based arguments for imigration.
Given your familiarity with restrictionists' talking points, can you make pro-immigration argument that appeals to the host nation's self-interest?
I wasn't actually attempting to bring pity upon myself, but merely noting that I'm the more likely target for anti-diversity rhetoric. The native born blacks were here when the country was founded while I'm merely what one could argue was the descendant of an optional class of admittees to this country's fabric.
can you make pro-immigration argument that appeals to the host nation's self-interest?
To be honest no, as I'm not smart enough to do so, and quite frankly, I'd appeal to emotional sentiment which isn't a way to win the hearts and minds of those with an IQ that's nearly thirty points higher than mine.
For those who are far more knowledgable about immigration law, does anybody know about the status of immgrants from Latin America and the Caribbean before the reforms in the 1960s? My mother recounts the few Haitians who came before her, with a few actually noting that President Eisenhower was their first president in the States. I'm wondering if immigration restrictions at the time prevented those from our hemisphere from comming legally, or would weakening discrimination merely make it easier for these immigrants to come to the states sans changes in immigration law?
***You see all the elements that have made our country not only great in achievement but also a beacon and goal for so many people in so many other countries [Diversity equals achievement?].***
Bit of a cheap shot, but I couldn't see any black or latino associates or partners in his law firm?
http://www.pryorcashman.com/attorneys.html
I just wrote up this email but I'm a little hesitant to contact him as you just don't mess with lawyers, right?:
Mr. Cashman,
I'm assuming you are the Gideon Cashman who sent in this letter to the editor to the New York Times concerning the benefits of diversity. If this is not you, please do not continue reading this email.
Your letter contends that diversity represents a valuable and venerable end unto itself. In addition, this axiomatic ideal of diversity entails a great benefit to our country, manifested in our collective social energy and tangible achievement.
Yet perusing through the partners at your law firm, Pyror Cashman, I noted the conspicuous LACK of diversity as not one black or Hispanic was included. In conjunction with your spirited defense of diversity as not only a laudable concept but a requisite aspect of success, the racial composition of your law firm seems woefully inadequate. Fittingly, I can only conclude that your law firm has a rather morose atmosphere and that this lack of diversity gravely affects the output of your staff.
I'd love to hear your thoughts and would be willing to post them at my blog (without a reference to your name, as I did as a courtesy to you in my original post).
***I just wrote up this email but I'm a little hesitant to contact him as you just don't mess with lawyers, right?:***
My advice would be to contact him using an alias and don't reference your blog (he could complain to google which isn't worth the hassle). Would be interested to hear his response. To his credit, on their site they state that they hire purely on merit. The diversity measures are largely at offering flex hours which I think is a good idea to allow parents to stay with the firm.
I think the email looks good. After the sentence "this lack of diversity gravely affects the output of your staff" you could perhaps add ('interestingly studies showing the business or social benefits of diversity are thin on the ground. In fact, those that have been carried out seem to suggest that social capital and community trust is reduced (Putman). While, Thomas A. Kochan's five-year study of the impact of diversity on business results found the rhetoric for diversity is "simply naive and overdone".
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXS/is_4_82/ai_99986376/
That Letter-to-the-editor was signed too,
"Gideon Cashman
New York, June 23, 2010"
I wonder if Mr. Cashman thinks the same diversity should apply to a certain middle eastern country that I can think of................oops, sorry, can't think that out-of-bounds thought. No comment indeed.
A couple of bloggers have used this expression I came up with once in a purple moment, and I think it applies here:
"Diversity for thee, but not for me"
Gideon Cashman, if things go to hell here, can go back to one other certain country on this planet. I cannot, and am pretty much stuck here. Hence why I dont want to see this nation descend into tribalism amongst competing groups.
Camlost,
I skimmed that Eve Carson link and found this gem:
"Eve Carson made much to do about “Diversity.” On her website for her election as class president for the University of North Carolina, she promised to extend “Diversity Week” and have more “Mix it up” days where students and faculty make every effort to sit with those of other ethnicity’s when eating lunch or whatever. How sweet. This girl was the embodiment of liberal White girl mentality."
----------------------------------
This is the Prince of Darkness, Baphomet, and Beelzebub again:
If I had but one superpower bestowed on me from Lucifer, it would be this: I'd have the mystical power over the criminal matrix that would allow me to influence whenever non-whites committed crimes against whites, I'd point my magic wand, and it mystically would ALWAYS be liberals and wealthy pro-immigration whites who would suffer, not traditional conservatives and ordinary Americans. Ive decried to the heavens online the ability of wealthy cultural leftists to seperate themselves from the immigrants they profess to love via gated communities and over-policed ritzy areas of towns that have incorporated de-facto carpet-surveillance-public spaces and excessive private security (usually by paying overtime to cops sitting in their police cars).
A couple of weeks back, a white beauty pagent winner, somewhere in Tennessee (can't find the article) was raped in her hotel room by an illegal alien who worked at the hotel. He used the masterkey, entered her room, strangled and raped her. That article was taken down from the newspaper website, but I was SHOCKED that they actually admitted he was an illegal alien. His first name was "Miguel"-something or other. They did not do the "inflammatory" and post this pretty girls picture, along with the slimeball illegal, but they SHOULD have. People need to see who-is-assaulting who.
Why, oh WHY, could that not have been Meagan McCain, the newly-divorced Karenna Gore Shiff, Chelsa Clinton, or even better yet, a daughter or niece of Tamar Jacoby? Why is it always some all-American-ordinary-probably-church-going-pretty-blonde-white girl from fly-over country? It makes me sick. Our elite are saying to us: "Diversity for thee, but not for me". There is a subtle war on us from an IQ standpoint here as well, as they know the new mixed populace will not be full of smart-assed white boys who are more than competition for screw-ups like Al Gore's drug-using-ugly-loser-son-who has been busted for hyperspeeding (over 100 mph) on multiple occasions and caught with drugs also, but has never been sentenced. It lessens competition for their own scions.
I wonder if Mr. Cashman thinks the same diversity should apply to a certain middle eastern country that I can think of................oops, sorry, can't think that out-of-bounds thought. No comment indeed.
I don't consider this an "out of bounds" thought. I think the hypocrisy is often rather apparent (look at Anthony Weiner for a great example). The "out of bounds" stuff follows that rather innocuous observation above, but I honestly don't want to start this discussion.
(Though the most famous "Cashman", or at least the one I think of, is an Irish Roman Catholic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cashman)
Why, oh WHY, could that not have been Meagan McCain, the newly-divorced Karenna Gore Shiff, Chelsa Clinton, or even better yet, a daughter or niece of Tamar Jacoby? Why is it always some all-American-ordinary-probably-church-going-pretty-blonde-white girl from fly-over country? It makes me sick.
Wait a second ... those are all women! Why couldn't it have happened to Abe Foxman or Ward Churchill??
... does anybody know about the status of immgrants from Latin America and the Caribbean before the reforms in the 1960s?
As far as I know, quotas didn't apply to immigrants from the Americas in either the 1924 or 1952 laws. This doesn't mean naturalization was easy to all Latin Americans (or those from the Caribbean, for that matter), since if it were there wouldn't have been thousands of Mexicans around to be chased out in 1954.
As to the difficulty of actually getting a visa, I have no information.
Are you Jewish? You seem very sensitive on these issues.
"And note the despondent formulation of America as somehow empty prior to the great diversity movement."
Actually, the letter engages in a refusal to consider what America was or wasn't like in the past. This is the future of “education” in this Country, I think.
Already they’re moving away from teaching anything that happened before the Civil Rights Movement.
Also, Non-New York parts of America are only very vaguely alluded to.
"America's Founding class is lauded only for permitting diversity, not for setting up a unique meritocracy and protecting the rights of Man."
The rights of Man get in the way of Hate Crime laws.
"But fortunately, such delusion can only exist if maintained by an impermeable vacuum."
But does he actually believe it?
"The rights of Man get in the way of Hate Crime laws."
Considering recent events this should say: "The rights of Man get in the way of Hate Speech laws."
Don't think there aren't some Diversity boosters who grit their teeth at the Framers for daring to include such an obstacle to their goals as the first amendment.
They also aren't so wild about the second amendment either.
"As far as I know, quotas didn't apply to immigrants from the Americas in either the 1924 or 1952 laws. This doesn't mean naturalization was easy to all Latin Americans (or those from the Caribbean, for that matter), since if it were there wouldn't have been thousands of Mexicans around to be chased out in 1954."
The thing is there weren't that many people in Latin America back then. It wasn't crowded like Europe.
After the 3rd world got vaccines and free food from the developed world is when their helpless indigenous populations began to explode. If only we had sent birth control instead of food.
Well, I agree about sending birth control, but Operation Wetback did affect close to a million Mexicans.
I am so sick of diversity. I grew up in an all white suburb and didn't need blacks,Mexicans or Asians to be happy.Now I feel like I live in a foreign country with so many people speaking different languages.
"Sure, if you're an artsy-hipster type who fancies him/herself as a "progressive" NYC is the place to be for no other reason that you can find a community of people just like you - but that's the point you make above - these people really aren't interested in "diversity" so much as theyr interested in being able to simply be among their own."
This made me think of the Israeli model Bar Rafaeli who said life's great. What can be better than living in NY? Do you think she hangs around with the riffraff of NYC or even the average white office worker who commutes from the suburbs? I am sure she is against racism and discrimination of course. She can afford to be PC,but live above the fray so to speak.
"Gideon Cashman, if things go to hell here, can go back to one other certain country on this planet."
"Back to"? He didn't originate from that country, and if he's Ashkenazi, it's likely that none of his direct ancestors have lived in that locale for around 2000 years.
Post a Comment