Diversity Post #2 Unity of values … not diversity.

diversity-image-1Diversity Post #2 Unity of values is what makes a community prosper and produce cohesive happiness… not diversity.
From the last post:

John Cook arrived in Hawaii in 1778. Cook found the “country seemed to be both well wooded and watered; and running streams were seen falling into the sea in various places.” The people there were full of good-will and genuine courtesy.

Life before Cook was a unified, homogenous, idyllic paradise. Then what happened? Diversity. The people were happy, self-sustained, and prosperous. One race, one religion, one language, one economy, one culture.

Such a disaster it was! This should not be! The Europeans swooped down and delivered them from the total lack of diversity in the islands. They brought a new race, a new religion, a new language, a new culture to these poor suffering non-diverse people.

Now continuing….

The aboriginal people in Hawaii were not diverse… not in the least. One race, one culture, one religion, one language. Of course, every individual was different by degree, but that is not diversity, that is individual differences. The culture was strong and vibrant and the people were satisfied and happy. They were this without diversity. They simply did not need it to survive and prosper… to be happy.

Let that sink in… people do not need diversity to be happy… neither the individuals nor the society. Is this what you are being taught? I suspect not. I ask you to think carefully about this subject.

Diversity was not what made the Hawaiians happy and prosperous. It was the fact that they were working together for a common good. They cared for each other and had commonalities that made them feel as one. They believed in the goodness of each other and valued each other’s life

Unity of values is what makes a community prosper and produce cohesive happiness.

Did you get that?

Unity of values is what makes a community prosper and produce cohesive happiness.

Not diversity.

A community with cohesive common values is a strong community.

Diversity… not so much. Let’s look at this more closely. What is diversity anyway?

Let us look at the definition: the condition of having or being composed of differing elements: variety; Merriam Webster

To be blunt and simple, diversity is simply a mental construct that is the conclusion drawn when examining any single group of things. I could look at a junk drawer and see diversity. Is that diversity a good thing or a bad thing? It is neither. It is simply a mental construct that results from perceiving a variety of elements within a compound set of things.

In a junk drawer that is completely unorganized, the greater amount of work it takes to find what is in there when you need it. Imagine a silverware drawer without an organizer. It would be very diverse and be easier to put the silverware away after your washed them, but it would be hard to find the exact piece you needed when you went to retrieve. So, organization of the diverse elements has its upside, but does the actual diversity make things better, than say…and entire drawer of spoons? I think you can catch my drift here. Diversity, in and of itself is not a good thing or a bad thing… it is just a description of the relative number of differing elements in relation to the total number of items. It is similar to an average or a mean. These are not negative or positive constructs. They are simply descriptions of quantitative analysis.

Ah yes, but here we are simply describing inanimate objects. Agreed, but the definition remains the same when we move to living things.

So, let’s try people. Suppose we go back to when the first people landed on the islands now known as Hawaii. Imagine a couple of guys in a fishing boat that got lost at sea in a big storm. They land on an island and their boat gets destroyed. These two fellas are not very diverse. Having the same language is very helpful though. Having some differing skills also helps – say one is good at hunting and the other good at fishing. But that is about as far as it goes. What is most important is that they value and trust one another. If one believes that humans are no more important than seaweed and can be disposed of without remorse, that could be a problem. If one thinks that humans make for good barbecue, that could also be a problem. Common language, common valuing of humans is what will greatly improve their chances and, in fact, are absolute necessities for survival.

Of course, the two could possibly live their lives out alone on the island. As long as they had fresh water, food, protection from the elements, and absence of infection and poisoning, they could live long lives…but once they die, the island is again uninhabited and the society of humans is gone. For the society to persist, they need a woman. They need diversity of gender in order for the society to transcend their individual lives. They need offspring. More specifically, the society needs a woman… not the men. They might want one… seriously want one, but for the two individuals to continue to exist, they do not need a woman. For the society to continue, they do.

So, does the society need diversity… or does it need a woman? I suggest the latter. It needs a woman for continued existence. Having new men land on shore who are of differing religions or languages or cultures does not help. It needs a woman. Now if a woman shows up, diversity has increased, but that is simply a description of the variety of elements compared to the whole. Diversity has not helped. Having two genders has improved the possibility of continued existence of the society.

Specific skills, crafts, and abilities, when added can improve the society, but not simply adding diversity. If several more men came who were murderous cannibals that spoke another language and worshipped different gods, this would not improve the society. It might even end it. Indeed, it would be more diverse, but not to any positive end, in an of itself.

Do you catch my drift here? Diversity is not a goal or structure to be striven for… not in and of itself. It does not, irrespective of the actual positive differences brought to the society, make anything better. It is like changing the average age. So what?

So, to recap the main points so far:

1) Diversity, in and of itself, it neutral. More diversity or less diversity in and of itself devoid of the elements that produced a change in diversity, it is mostly irrelevant to the society.

2) Unity of values is what makes a community prosper and produce cohesive happiness … not diversity.
Till the next installment… and the damage done by promoting diversity over value unity.

For more tidbits and helpful nuggets, go to www.jimshaul.org. If you find this post to be helpful or interesting, please “Like” and “Share”



This entry was posted in Values & Morals. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *