Diversity and the American Identity
"Now comes word that diversity as an ideology may be dead" - Wonder Land - WSJ.com
The report certainly sounds like bad news, but it should be considered in the context of today's world and not be judged against the yardstick of the European immigration of the early-1900's, or the strong communal bondings of the distinctly unique 1950's, or the free-love drug trance of the 1960's. Technology today makes the scope of community and connectivity much bigger than in these earlier, bygone eras. This is perhaps why the younger generation in Putnam's report show much greater tolerance for diversity, but show lesser local community activism.
Parallel play among kids is analogous to diversity enclaves, which have always existed in America and the world, and always will. The immigrants in early 1900's were enclaved into their own neighborhoods and very suspicious of others. The Melting Pot's ingredients don't automatically blend together; they need stimulation. There are some people who are natural "blenders", or connectors in social network terminology. These people actively cross boundaries to make critical links between natural and artificial groups on a large scale. But most of us are local nodes in this network; deciding to make (or not make) links with "others" we run across in our local groups.
What does it mean by diversity? Race and ethnic background is but one measure, but an important one given America's past. In Barry's backyard example, there was one important race not represented: African-American. And it's on this front about which Jeff's German friends were criticizing America. While we pat ourselves on the back about our integration in Lexington, let's not kid ourselves that this issue is bigger than one research study or one backyard cookout.
Diversity and assimilation is at the heart of American identity. What does it mean to be American and what measuring stick should we use? Some say the perceived historical measure should be used: Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Others say it's one political party (Republican) that determines true Americans. Still others say it's your religious convictions. There's no end of litanies: equality of reward, capitalism, empathy and compassion, rule of law.
These are personally unfulfilling because they artificially elevate one or two diversity scale above all others to satisfy ideological, religious, social, or political agendas. Thus, they can be easily used to trample others rights and condemn others for non-belief. ("Just take the blue pill, Neo, or else.")
I don't believe there are simple litmus tests that can be applied to test one's commitment to America. (Well, ok...if you want to become a tyrant here, that's an obvious personal failing.) Our country was founded on the principle that everyone has the freedom to pursue individual happiness. *Individual.*
People band together for various reasons: family, tribes, church, neighborhood, work, hobbies, gender, etc. This is human nature. Hierarchy and networks are good organizing principles within these groups, too. Nature loves networks.
However, when the group or network, out of fear or suspicion, dictates beliefs or traits one must hold to retain membership, that goes against the American experiment. When a group tries to change the definition of American identity from the Constitution, that is wrong. When a group tries to deny the rights of others, that is injustice. These are not black-and-white statements, but are filled with subtlety. I value inclusive over exclusive as guiding principles.
In the world's eyes, America is turning into a closed enclave. Within this nation, we have powerful people intentionally fracturing our shared American identity along social fault lines using fear as the wedge. We cannot simply hope for time to heal the wounds to our identity and our nation.
We cannot allow fear become the measuring stick of American identity.
The report certainly sounds like bad news, but it should be considered in the context of today's world and not be judged against the yardstick of the European immigration of the early-1900's, or the strong communal bondings of the distinctly unique 1950's, or the free-love drug trance of the 1960's. Technology today makes the scope of community and connectivity much bigger than in these earlier, bygone eras. This is perhaps why the younger generation in Putnam's report show much greater tolerance for diversity, but show lesser local community activism.
Parallel play among kids is analogous to diversity enclaves, which have always existed in America and the world, and always will. The immigrants in early 1900's were enclaved into their own neighborhoods and very suspicious of others. The Melting Pot's ingredients don't automatically blend together; they need stimulation. There are some people who are natural "blenders", or connectors in social network terminology. These people actively cross boundaries to make critical links between natural and artificial groups on a large scale. But most of us are local nodes in this network; deciding to make (or not make) links with "others" we run across in our local groups.
What does it mean by diversity? Race and ethnic background is but one measure, but an important one given America's past. In Barry's backyard example, there was one important race not represented: African-American. And it's on this front about which Jeff's German friends were criticizing America. While we pat ourselves on the back about our integration in Lexington, let's not kid ourselves that this issue is bigger than one research study or one backyard cookout.
Diversity and assimilation is at the heart of American identity. What does it mean to be American and what measuring stick should we use? Some say the perceived historical measure should be used: Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Others say it's one political party (Republican) that determines true Americans. Still others say it's your religious convictions. There's no end of litanies: equality of reward, capitalism, empathy and compassion, rule of law.
These are personally unfulfilling because they artificially elevate one or two diversity scale above all others to satisfy ideological, religious, social, or political agendas. Thus, they can be easily used to trample others rights and condemn others for non-belief. ("Just take the blue pill, Neo, or else.")
I don't believe there are simple litmus tests that can be applied to test one's commitment to America. (Well, ok...if you want to become a tyrant here, that's an obvious personal failing.) Our country was founded on the principle that everyone has the freedom to pursue individual happiness. *Individual.*
People band together for various reasons: family, tribes, church, neighborhood, work, hobbies, gender, etc. This is human nature. Hierarchy and networks are good organizing principles within these groups, too. Nature loves networks.
However, when the group or network, out of fear or suspicion, dictates beliefs or traits one must hold to retain membership, that goes against the American experiment. When a group tries to change the definition of American identity from the Constitution, that is wrong. When a group tries to deny the rights of others, that is injustice. These are not black-and-white statements, but are filled with subtlety. I value inclusive over exclusive as guiding principles.
In the world's eyes, America is turning into a closed enclave. Within this nation, we have powerful people intentionally fracturing our shared American identity along social fault lines using fear as the wedge. We cannot simply hope for time to heal the wounds to our identity and our nation.
We cannot allow fear become the measuring stick of American identity.
