Amazon.com Widgets
  • Diversity in general is a laudable goal in and of itself.

    Intuition guides us to the conclusion best person for the job is the standard we should gather beneath. This invariably is a white cis-gendered male or less so often white cis-gendered female. If they are best person for the job why should we care, right?
    Someday in the future we may all be colour blind, that however is not the case today. While I accept the limitations of racial diversity I understand its goals and its power to unify disenfranchised sections of society. This for me is the lesser of two evils and has the potential to lead to a more inclusive society.

  • No not really

    Cultural diversity is important, but racial diversity not so much. You can have a group that is racially diverse but culturally similar--say a bunch of white, Hispanic and black people from the same city. On the other hand you can have a bunch of white people from completely different countries and cultures. They wouldn't be racially diverse but they would be more culturally diverse than the other group. Also political diversity is important.

  • Over a billion

    Chinese can't be wrong. Tho it may not be the best example, if you look at areas that are less diverse, they are also more peaceful. This is because they have less cultural conflicts. If you look around the world, the most peaceful places are either surrounded by others that share similar culture or exist on an island where the influence of other cultures is limited. This is why the U.S. tends to be so violent as there is such a mix of contrasting cultures that it leads to violence.

  • It is not necessary to propagate racial diversity, as it does not benefit a level playing field, nor does it necessarily promote egalitarianism.

    The idea that we should necessitate racial diversity in various institutions and within fields is absurd, as it only creates division. If a company creates quotas for the number of people of certain race it must have within it's community, then it's not really fair to the other candidates who might be qualified for the same job; by the same token, if a company is found to reject candidates on the grounds of their race, then that company is in the position to be reevaluated by the public, other companies, and it's own employees, as it is passing up viable opportunity to have good candidates in their employment, who might make the company better. It should not be required though that efforts be made to include all people, rather, it should be simply be an accepted given that, all people are welcome. No one should have to include a Hispanic, a black, and an Asian in their community for the sake of it. In the arts, if a creator decides to write a show or a book that happens to include an all white cast, it should not be a calls for realignment of that cast, it should instead be considered that maybe these actors were the best fit for the role. Louis C.K., in his show Louie decides to replace the white actress who was his wife in the first season, with a black actor in later seasons. Of this, he says, "Every episode has it's own goal, and if it messes with the goal of another episode, I don't care," to this extent, a number of continuity "issues" have been brought up regarding the show, including the fact that his mother has been portrayed as benevolent as well as in the light of an old-world racist. The decision to change to a black actress in regards to his wife had to do with the fact that he felt the actress better portrayed his ex-wife in real life. It had nothing to do with the fact that Susan Watson was black, but rather that, of the many actors that were auditioned, Louis felt she was the pick in hindsight, and as a result, reshuffled his cast accordingly. Necessary racial diversity does not necessarily challenge the concept of racism where it matters, it only challenges the aesthetic aspect of it, but not its taboo nature.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.