“When their children are grown up to be fit for such conversation as talk and play, they permit them not the least society with the Mohammedan children . . . that hereby they may timely possess them with an averseness towards all Mohammedanism . . .”
“As for the divine mysteries of Christianity, the Jews represent them to their children in such monstrous shapes, that they are fitter for their affrightment than embracing.”
Lancelot Addison, The Present State of the Jews: More Particularly Relating to those in Barbary (1675)
When a small minority dwells amidst a host population, it normally takes on the language and culture of its host. This is called assimilation, and it will occur unless strong obstacles are raised by the minority or host population. If the minority wishes to preserve the purity of its culture (and blood), it must follow the path of separatism, and separatism requires it to “possess” its children “with an averseness” for the host population. It must severely restrict association with members of the host culture and represent that culture “in monstrous shapes.”
When the minority is not so very small, and the majority wishes to preserve the purity of its culture (and blood), the majority must permanently quarantine the minority population in a ghetto, and must also defame the minority culture in the eyes of its children. As Lancelot Addison says, cultural survival requires some amount of “affrightment” to maintain the cordon sanitaire that divides—and preserves—the two groups.
Cultural and biological diversity disappears in the absence of a cordon sanitaire, particularly in our age of global transport and communication, when mountains, oceans and malarial swamps no longer stand as natural barriers. When natural divisions are destroyed and social substitutes are not supplied, a fusion of culture (and blood) will necessarily follow. The process of fusion will be accelerated if all social barriers, “averseness” and “affrightment” are simultaneously destroyed.
Thus, an advocate of diversity is logically committed to social and spatial segregation, and should look with horror at any attempt to pull such obstacles down. That advocates of diversity actually oppose segregation suggests that they are either morons or liars.
Advocates of diversity are likewise logically committed to a jus connubi that would have pleased Lester Maddox, since miscegenation necessarily leads to loss of diversity. Israel Zangwill’s play The Melting Pot is an inter-racial Romeo and Juliet story, albeit with a happier ending. Here is how the play was described by the Baltimore Sun in 1909.
“Israel Zangwill’s vision [is] of the United States as a vast melting pot, in which the diverse races of Europe are to be melted down into . . . homogeneous human metal . . . reducing us all to a common American type.”
You may yearn for this day when “diverse races” have been reduced to a “homogenous human metal,” but you may not call that day a triumph of diversity. On that day there will be no diversity at all.
Here is a stern lesson in diversity maintenance, taken from the history of the Italian colony in Brazos County, Texas. This was one of the largest Italian farming communities in the United States, and it diversifies our county right down to this day.
“The Italian does not associate with the Bohemian or American except in a business way, and then only when it is absolutely necessary . . . . Only one case of intermarriage has occurred in the history of the colony. In that instance, an Italian married an American girl. After the marriage, they found themselves ostracized by their friends, both American and Italian, and therefore moved away.” (Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911)).
“The Italian farmers have little good will for negroes and negroes greatly fear vicious dogs. Accordingly, practically every Italian farmer kept one to a dozen savage dogs to keep the negroes at a respectful distance.” (Thesis, Cornell University (1917)).
I do not think that these Italians would win any diversity awards from our Provost and Executive Vice President for Diversity, but that is only because she either hates diversity, has no idea what it means, or sees it simply as a battle cry.
If her office actually sought to “enhance diversity,” it would encourage
Cultivation of “Averseness”
Inculcation of “Affrightment”
Ostracism of Defectors
Several Savage Dogs
It’s either that or the melting pot.