-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Our nation has made some progress towards the realization of this dream since 1963. Voting Rights Act, equal opportunity in most every place of employment, non-discrimination clauses in hiring, admissions, and acceptance policies, the emergence of a small African-American middle class, majors and minors in African-American studies, offices of Diversity on school campuses, and on and on and on.

Yet there seem to be plenty of barriers to the dream. Our cities remain segregated de facto, if not in iuris, as are, in some cases, our schools. Although people of different races and ethnicities are legally permitted to live anywhere or go to school anywhere, everyone seems to be still rather distant and apart. When one looks at schools that champion diversity and see that by and large, ethnic and racial groups still stick together, one has to wonder what all of the effort is for.

Most schools and employers these days are making a push for diversity, without necessarily defining what that means or what they intend to accomplish in promoting this concept diversity. Your thoughts on it all?

While we can do everything legally to diversify our country, there is nothing we can do socailly about the way people feel about race and the need for diveristy. The town I used to live in in CT had a total of my 8 years there some 8 african americans in the whole school system, leading to a lack of open thought and created sterotypes of a culture that people had little contact with. Moving to just north of DC, heh, a bit more diveristy.

We can only attempt to keep improving the legal standings that we have now, and hope that social diveristy comes in time.

Here in NC many people are racist which really bugs me. Even many of my classmates are racist and they do not even notice it. Here it seems to almost be accepted.

To all: Do you a feel a need to help improve the situation? If so, what?

Yes, I do feel a need to allievate the situation.

I currently live and work in Chicago, I live on the North side, and my work frequently takes me to the South side. There's a point on the mass transit train where all the white people get off and from then on it's only blacks riding it. This is on the south side, people joke about it but EVERYONE acknowledges its existence. The south side is typically the area hit worst by transit service cuts, yet it has only Three train lines running through it, as opposed to the north side that has 6 (two of them even run up into the suburbs). When I look at that, and see how structural racism is essentially keeping Black people on the south side and in poverty, (this thing could become an essay, so I'll leave it at this, if you want me to outline how i see it as all working and tying together to keep them "in their place" personal message me and I'll write up something for you.)

I feel that Delta is onto something. You can't legislate how people think, so you're stuck with that, you have to almost work on an individual basis to break down an individual's beliefs and... that's hard. It's almost disheartening.

Heh, the East part of the Greenline is the same thing in DC, or just Southeast in general. The "thing I was onto" was (surprising) put into word by my Navel Science Instructor for Navy JROTC, though I was aware of it before, I never quite thought about it in those terms. Our gov't can put into place only so much governing diveristy, the rest is up to the people to handle.

What does this entail?

It requires people to live life with an open mind, somthing that no law will ever make anyone do. Education is the best bet, try to teach people to be openminded, but that, again, can only do so much. To quote Robert Heinlin: "You can lead a person to knowalge, but you can't make them think."

That's a good one. On my part, I think it's important to build cross-ethnic, cross-racial, and cross-cultural friendships. Not just acquaintances or partnerships, but real friendships--friendships that last through life.

That's probably the best thing we can do.

I'd agree.

Psycholopher you've probably read some studies on how prejudice is formed/deconstructed. But I remember from a social psych class that the most effective way of destroying personal prejudice was non-threatening exposure to the object of prejudice, and if you and that person or group have to work towards a common goal, that's a very effective means of doing it that tended to do it even quicker.

We need to continue to work on removing prejudice from society on every level. It is a very tough task as it is doubtful that we will ever really remove it from our minds but the extent of it can be limited. With acceptance and understanding people will learn to put things behind them and not make any big deals out of anything new which may happen. I think it would be safe to say that crime will also decrease a significant amount afterall, who is one most likely to committ a crime against, a person of a group they have a major prejudice against or one who the prejudice is minute.

There is something we can do to change how people in general feel about the various types of ethnicity. We can educate the "young" in the area if psychology come high school and stress that not everyone thinks or responds in the same manner. Make it mandatory with putting key in biology that ethnicity does not mean superiority or inferiority. Hell, the biology part can be done in elementary school when they first get biology. This is a long term plan however.

Although, do you think it's possible for a third grader to look at this information from their teacher, and decide that mommy and daddy shouldn't keep talking about [insert whatever minority group you please] people the way they do?

Actually, violent crime (murder, rape, assault) is usually committed between members of the same race. But yeah, it probably would cut down on crime at least a little bit.

Boru
Yes it is possible but the better question is, is it likely? That early if a kid tried to do it then they'd get beat down pretty harsh in a debate over it. Simply put - they lack the resources and ability to think in such a way to really nail the other side. The idea is to expose them to basic information about the individual groups early on in life as time goes on expand the information taught so they get a better understanding of the material and others.


psycholopher
I used the words prejudice and ethnicity specifically because they are general. They can encompass many groups be it religion, skin tone, nationality, culture, etc.

This is not just an issue of skin tone but of many things.

I agree Gen, that we do need to educate people on the issue of Diversity, but outside of doing that, what can we really do that hasn't been done? And how can we assure that everyone who educates anyone on diversity does it the "right way". What is the "right way"? Who determines that?

Deltasix
Teachers go over the basics of the human body but not what makes groups different. If they went over it and put emphasis on the point that say skin tone is the only thing which really separates whites from blacks then it should make an impression on those who may otherwise think that either skin tone is intellectually inferior to themselves.

Have students take psychology as a mandatory class. Go over how people think so they have a better understand of other people. The better understanding will likely reduce the amount of generalizing that occurs as a result of witnessing or hearing of certain acts.

As for the right way, there is no such thing as not all students are able to absorb the material the same way. Leave some leeway for teachers but make sure they hit certain key points. Provide some sources for teachers in case they wish to use them and look over sources they may wish to replace them with.

You don't want to send mixed messages and a teacher may have a better source then what the administration has so it is best to keep your options open.

Its all well and go Gen. but it leads us back to the point I made a while ago, we can "lead people to knowalge, but can't make them think". One belives letting someone know the facts would change their point of view to fit a standard all over the place, in all aspects in life, but this is not true.

Other than educate, which the idea has been brought up, there is nothing else we can do, and there will be a few, some would say enough, who do not wish to absord this knowlage, or can't, or for some other reason do not learn for racism to continue for a long time.

In the purest sense, this statement is true, but in a realistic sense, this is unfortunately untrue. And frankly, most people of ethnic minorities that I've spoken to do not believe this to be true, and do not really want to be treated as if this was true.

To say that the only thing that separates whites from blacks is skin color is to ignore huge trends in differences between several sub-cultures in America, and to scoff at the idea of "African-American" identity (or Latino-American, Asian-American, or otherwise).

The claiming of such hyphenated identity, and the pride that goes with it, is not substantiated upon mere skin color or genetic difference. Such an identity is invariably bound up with a sense of history (a history usually tied in some way to oppression/alienation in a white culture) and inevitably bound to a strong identification with viewing oneself not merely as an American who just "happens" to be a minority.

Deltasix
Through education you will usually get the most intelligent individuals. Given time this will move down to those who are less intelligent as they argue something with them that they will be more likely to accept then what was said in a class.

As I said, this is a long term plan. The immediate impact of it will not be noticeable.

You can of course enact anti-discrimination laws but that simply battles it and appear not to be taken serious.


psycholopher
Culture has to do with where one lives and the customs they pick up. I can move to a largely black neighborhood and pick up their customs but that does not make me black. To ignore the fact that customs can be adopted by anyone means that you think they can not be.

People having pride does not mean there is any more to it just that they believe there is. Remember, what one believes isn't necessarily true.

With all honesty it's ridiculous to have pride in anything which one had no control over. Only when really does not matter can we as a people heal from the wounds inflicted over the centuries.

I don't deny this. Nor did I say that culture was the ONLY thing that made black people black. I was just saying that skin color isn't the only thing that does.

Which means a lot. And frankly, what we create of our existence to form our sense of identity (or our essence, as the existentialists would have it), is all there really is.

Just about every aspect of identity has some rootedness in nature or something "fixed" (like biology or place of birth), but no aspect of identity can be subsumed or reduced to that fixed aspect. So let's take race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and sexuality, for instance. All of these things are commonly taken to be fixed. Someone is born black, of Ethiopian descent, American, female, and homosexual. However, these characteristics take on greater meaning both in terms of the ways in which they are socially constructed, and in terms of how the individual constructs his or her own world to enforce or deny those characteristics.

Now the part of those characteristics that is socially and personally infused may not in fact be clear cut, definable, or by any means necessary or even helpful. But if we are to be human at all, they are existentially necessary.

That the reality of racial identity is not formed by biology does not make it any less real.

And well, there's very little that we have control over, and nothing that we have COMPLETE control over, so is all pride ridiculous?

Yes.

I know, I was just making a point as you mentioned the sub-culture and so I replied to it by making that statement.

I'm saying you're wrong. Customs develop from those who live, share knowledge and thoughts. The customs develop as a result of such things, not as a result of skin tone.

Yes but ones growth is limited by what they are or have been exposed to. One who was beaten or sexually abused will respond differently then one of the exact same biological make up but who was not beaten or sexually abused.

The genetic code for skin color only affects that to my knowledge. If you wish to say that the code for skin color does impact the way in which ones brain functions please state so and provide some source so I can read up on it if you have one available.

I personally do not see why it would impact it. I would however see what you mean if you wished to say other changes which impact the way a group thinks occured and are different from what another group has in terms of coding.

Before I respond to this I want to know exactly what you mean by "racial identity." I want to know if my reply would fit it or if I need to alter it is why I ask. Better to be sure then look like a (total) fool, no? :-)

I would say that depends on what the specific thing is which you have pride in. Having absolutely no control over something automatically makes it ridiculous because nothing was earned on any level. Just what about being of a specific biological make up (in this case a skin tone) gives you that increased self-esteem? It makes no sense.

I can see having pride in the fact that you had just beat the top ranked player in some highly popular game on even terms. I can see having pride because you got a task done without a hitch as it was highly important for ones career.

However seeing the reason for one having pride does not mean it is any less ridiculous. So yes, through thought (those two paragraphs are a part of my thoughts on it) it is ridiculous because you do not have full control over it. Yes, I am a bit hypocritical on this as I and probably everyone else has had or does have pride when it comes to at least one thing. (I figured you may ask)

There are pretty strong correlations between skin color and other human functions, attitudes, and characteristics, which seem to indicate that genetic markers for skin color do in fact influence other things. A simple example off hand is the prevelance of sickle cell anemia in African Americans. Another would be seeing marked differences in the average levels of testosterone in black males, Caucasian males, and Asian males. This however, would be a whole other topic and could spawn discussion that is only tangential to this particular issue.

I'm not trying to say that the customs and lifestyles of particular groups arise out of their skin colors; I'm merely saying that they are correlative.

Look. I don't totally disagree with you. At its most BASIC and literal level, race is yes, fundamentally about skin color, and that is in fact a silly thing to get all worked up about. But racial identity, and by that I mean what a black person might think to himself when he thinks to himself "I'm black" or what an Asian person thinks when she says "I'm Asian," goes far beyond a mere statement of what color one's hair and skin are. And this is not an uncommon phenomenon. Ethnic minorities in this country are quite conscious of their race, in a way that white people are not.

I guess the best analogy is something like a family name. Let's say that I'm related to the Kennedy family, and my last name is Kennedy. At a basic level, this is rather unimportant--it just happens to be the last name that I was given when I was born--and I just so happen to be related to that family. Well this name takes on added significance when, throughout my entire upbringing, my parents talk about how important it is that "I'm a Kennedy," and that "Kennedy's don't stoop that low" or that I need to "restore dignity to the Kennedy name." Furthermore, I go to school and people say "oh there's that Kennedy kid." And then I get into Harvard and Yale because after all, I'm a Kennedy. Suddenly, this seemingly inconsequential thing of a name has altered my world in permanent ways, and I undoubtedly view my own identity as being tied up with this idea of "being a Kennedy." I can choose to accept or reject this idea, but the idea in some way or another has become part of who I am.

The same will go for race, except in the case of the Kennedy thing, that person can change to another last name--unlike in race. One's racial identity is NOT just skin color--it is the summation of phenomena that accompany that skin color throughout one's life, plus how an individual chooses to respond to those phenomena. So you can say that the only thing about race is skin color, but NO minority will be able to relate to you.

Now the idea of seeing everyone through "color blind" lenses is a noble idea. It's an idea of equality and fairness and justice. But it is not an idea based in reality--because frankly, we're NOT all the same, we're not TREATED as if we're all the same, and we don't WANT to be all the same. So to deal with race as if it were just a problem of melanonin and skin pigmentation is to try to wish the problem away--to deal with reality as if it were some Orwellian utopia.

Psycholopher,
Is this racial identity only present in minorities in America? Or do you know if it exists elsewhere?

It is present most everywhere.

Yeah, any place where people of different races and/or ethnicities interact with each other.

Alright last question about it (for now)

Can it be developed by someone who doesn't have it? For example, a caucasian who is from the USA goes and lives in Africa, would they suddenly develop a sense of racial identity when they have never had one before? Or is it something that you need to have developed by a certain point?

Well the sense of racial identity is always there and always shaping--it's never fixed so to say. But certainly, that person's awareness of racial identity would certainly be heightened.

Well, racial identity and lack of diversity are not a direct corilation......always...


One can have an identity,to be able to look over their past, their culture and what it has done, where they came from, but not do so to the point of having a dislike or close mindedness about other's races.

I disagree.
Firstly, psycholpher said that MINORITIES in this country are aware of their racial identity in a way white people aren't. I think you might be confusing cultural identity with racial identity, or maybe I am, but from what I understand of it, it's typically heightned when you're in the minority, though i won't say its existence is necessarily based on it.

I'm white (incase some of you didn't know) and to be honest, the only time I'm really conscious of the fact that I'm white is when I'm the only white person in the room. For example, my work takes me to the south side of Chicago rather frequently, and for those who don't know much about Chicago it held, and for that matter, to the best of my knowledge, still does hold, the distinction of being one of the most segregated cities in the country. The south side is 95% black (by a VERY conservative estimate.) When I'm on the train and I look around and see about 20 other people sitting there, all of them black, I am usually very briefly, conscious of the fact that I am the only white person on that train car. Whereas on a train heading north, when there are usually more white people than black people, the fact I'm white never consciouslly crosses my mind.

Secondly, I don't think anyone was saying that racial identity mean closemindness, merely a consciousness of one's race.

Its with white people as far as I can tell. There is still racial (or cultural) identities with racial majorities in other countries. I'm half mexican, and I feel both the "white" side and identity, and the mexican side.

Well, I'm saying that identity doesn't lead to dislike of other races, I don't think that people here are saying (or thinking) that, but it often an arguement. People think when you feel pride in what you are, for where you come from, it can lead to dislike of others that don't share the same background as you (think: White Pride)

Check. I'd forgotten we'd been discussing having pride in our racial identities, in lihgt of that, your comments make sense.

Racism will always be a part of normal life

But does it have to be? Thats really the issue.

Let me reframe this question.

What does/should "diversity" aim to to fix? What problem is it addressing, aside from the balancing of social/racial iniquity?

If a school is all-white or all-black or all-latino, is this a PROBLEM? If so, what is problematic about it?

It seems that many seem to think so. And so people of all races are thrown together using a variety of methods. Does this work? How?

It should help to bring understanding. Unless you plan to live in a box (or Maine) your entire life, you are going to meet people of many ethnic groups in the real world. Understanding of cultures and lifestyles helps in all senses.

Given the efforts made in the past 40 years to provide diversity in educational and work environments, do you think that it's working? You say that it should provide understanding. Is it working?

To an extent, I would say that yes, it is. Now, we are far from overall acceptance, which though it isn't exactly a goal, I do think it will come from true understanding, but we've come a way. Alot farther than we came in the frist 150 years of our nation's history.

Does anyone know of the top of their heads--which country is the most racially diverse in the world?

No I don't my guess is probably in the mid-east or in some nation which has the strongest mixture of trade among the worlds nations.

A good point is made in the need to examine the goal of diversity and in what realm. Is the goal to achieve a homogenous status in the entire world? I find that makes the world rather bland and that they exist because humanity has varied tolerance of shared boundaries amongst each other. Its not universal. Is the goal to achieve a homogenous state with in a nation? This may not serve the sense of community to the people within that nation who have formed social contracts of government based on their nationality to serve their common interests. It actually undermines nationality differences in the world and world history.

By eliminating national government, which is more or less, what the governments of the world seem to be trying to do, as they tend more and more to hegemony to multinational institutions, will they eliminate war and poverty in the world? The UN has done so poorly to date. More and more influence and control is being given to global corporate institutions. I don't like this. The corporate institution isn't based on individual rights of humanity. It recognizes & treats humanity as a commodity demeaning humanity. There is a strong lack of worker representation in these institutions of which the majority of the worlds populations are. Few survive off of investment. If this continues those who hold the power over the global corporations will in effect control the world as they control the nations of the world. This is small number of people of the world of whom it has always proved fatal to just place blind trust in. What's more hegemony seems to be an even bigger failure to addressing war and poverty of the world. It just moves economy of the of the middleclasses to the poor while the rich act to ensure to ensure their untouchablity. I think it's bullshit frankly.

It used to make sense for Americans to protect their corporations. Americans futures were intertwined with corporations. They were the means of the wages on which we survive & have political influence with. They assisted provison of our health care another means of survival. They helped us provide for our retirements through pensions, our survival in our later years. To invest in them insured the survival of the nation as a whole because of this. The majority of Americans have never worked for corporations but rather for small to moderate businesses which have strong community ties to the nation as they are their prominent consumers. A large portion of Americans however do work for corporations.

It no longer makes sense to support corporations now. They have disentangled themselves from the future interests of Americans. They have abandoned assisting us with health care, with our retirements (unless it is invested in the company through 401k's even though it may be better to invest that money in bonds or something else), & they refuse to grant job security to those Americans who work for them, ensuring their survival. Why should I give a shit if an American corporation lives or dies? It doesn't share my interests nor protects them. I deny globalization is in my interests because of this. I couldn't care less about the survival of global companies. It is my national economy of which I am most concerned and as a consumer at this point I am better off supporting the small businesses and moderare sized businesses of which I have better influence over the product. Individual consumers of global products have less influence in both the quality of the product and fairness in its distribution. That's why I believe in anticorporate personhood ordinances and elimination of all entities which are not nonprofit humanitarian from being able to lobby and influence our elections. Improving humanity serves all. They are the only entity which doesn't qualify for the one man one vote for which I approve. Yes, I realize it prevents worker unions from lobbying too. Workers still however maintain their individual influence while corporations lose far more influence. If necessary to achieve this I would sacrifice the nonprofit humanitarian lobbying influence & just leave individual influence on governmental & electoral issues. On an individual representation this can still be achieved, just slower.

What does this have to do with diversity? Well the corporate entities have used this word as a means to achieve their own ends. I think there was only one major law suit, Denny's, that I can remember, when the corporate structure began pushing diversity classes on its workers. Where was this American corporate support back in the 60's when rascism was a dominant issue? They had to be forced by law. Why the change of heart now? Their motives are obviously suspect.

Diversity classes were pushed on middleclass workers of the corporate structure to ensure their fear being called rascists as foreign workers were brought in & they were forced to train them. Other tactics were used too. Corporate workers are forced to rate each other, the ratings of which affect the next round of layoffs, creating distrust & hostility among the workers. Many who still work for corporate America will tell you that few of the workers even talk to each & that there is hidden veiled hostility. The lack of community among workers serves the corporate interests. The term diversity is being used to divide American workers.
All of this ties into the immigration law changes which have broken the American immigration system in regards to guest/temporary worker visas.