...how the same people who laud the virtues of "diversity" are the first people to deny significant biological differences between races, or that races exist at all? Go ahead and ask the next person who tells you what an enriching experience it is to live beside Mexicans and Somalians if they differ from whites in any way beyond skin color and he'll probably say No.
So on the one hand these people, the people who sing the praises of "diversity," stress difference, i.e. "diversity" and how this is a good thing. But on the other hand, you ask these same people whether the groups who make their neighborhood "diverse" differ biologically from whites and they'll begin stressing sameness. Am I missing something here? Aren't these twin beliefs mutually exclusive?
What these people seem to be saying is that an area, place, city, country, etc becomes more "diverse" with people living in it who only differ by a superficial trait (skin color) and therefore the area, place, city, country, etc becomes "diverse" in a superficial sense.
Bookmarks