Skip to comments.Diversity vs. E Pluribus Unum
Posted on 10/31/2010 11:00:13 PM PDT by Gum Shoe
Diversity. What a pleasant sounding word. I see colorful posters bearing the word placed in prominence around the office where I work. I often see the word applied in noble motto: Strength in Diversity or Celebrate Diversity. What a lovely sentiment. What could be wrong with that? I am a German American, whose original German-born ancestor arrived in the United States of America in 1853 following the death of his first wife. Im quite sure his life in Germany was shattered. He came to America destitute, with small children in tow. He remarried an Ohio woman and settled in the fertile fields of Illinois to continue his life as a farmer. I have an appreciation for Oktoberfest that may well be genetic. Im sure my love of the food is at any rate. Growing up in the South-West, I also dearly love the Cinco de Mayo celebration (also for the food and drink Mexican food is the bomb!). I often found myself in the racial minority on some of the streets where I grew up. My first serious girlfriend in High School was a Latina. Is that what Celebrate Diversity means? Successfully living and working alongside those who are different than us? Thats what it may seem, unless you think about it a bit more.
I believe those of the liberal persuasion who find themselves in contemporary positions of power and policy making (i.e. the guys who write the quaint sayings) may define Diversity as a variety or multiformity based on a point or respect in which things differ. Another way to say the same thing is the strength of the masses is derived from the individual socio-ethnic, economic, and racial class from which the individual comes; the greater those differences, the greater the power of the masses. Unfortunately, there are some among us who seek to empower themselves by promoting and harnessing those differences. The greater the differences, or needs of the individual, the greater their value to the liberal society or politician. I believe this definition is one of the pillars of liberalism, and the clear antithesis to the original spirit of E Pluribus Unum as promoted by our Founding Fathers.
I have found that for every lovely idea or mechanism that exists in the physical world there is a diabolical counterfeit intended to obfuscate the intent and values embodied in the original. In the world of politics Ive noticed the counterrfeits are most often foisted upon us by those promoting elitist multicultural materialism (liberals). Charitable giving is replaced with government mandated wealth redistribution; the church is replaced by the state as the source of devine authority; and the village replaces the family as the primary nurturing force for our children. Diversity is simply another diabolical counterfeit.
On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress empanelled a committee to oversee the design of a Great Seal of the United States of America. A number of suggestions were considered, with input by Benjamin Franklin and Charles Thomson. The Latin motto E Pluribus Unum was ultimately approved for inclusion on the obverse of the seal. Its translation closely means Out of many, one. It also describes an action of Many uniting into one. Charles Thomson said the motto refers to the union of states, but I believe the ideal of E Pluribus Unum could go beyond that. If the states comprise the nation, it can be said that the people comprise the states.
My best friend in High School is second generation American. His father legally came to the United States just in time to enlist in the U.S. Army during World War Two. Following the war, this man worked and put himself through college earning a B.S. Degree in Engineering. Following graduation, he secured a life-time job as an aero-space engineer in Southern California. I remember this father not allowing his children to speak Spanish in their home claiming, Youre Americans now! Speak English! At the time, I thought that was a bit harsh, and that learning Spanish would be an advantage for someone living in California. But, their father greatly valued the United States more than his origins, and was more than willing to place all he had upon her alters. In fact, my friend recently retired from the United States Air Force following a successful career as a bomber pilot. All those siblings consider themselves Americans, first and foremost. I never saw anyone in this family look back after coming to this country.
As for my German ancestor, he enlisted in the 15th Illinois Cavalry, United States Army when the Civil War broke out in 1861. He campaigned in the western theater until he suffered a debilitating injury. His grandson fought in France during World War One, against Germany. Later, many on my German side of the family fought during World War Two, several again fighting in Europe. And me? I've done my bit in Iraq.
The ultimate point of this rodomontade is simply this; I believe this country is being torn apart by diverse groups seeking their own vain ambitions. Being an American is no longer as important as achieving those ambitions. The extensive entitlement state that attracts dead weight must be eliminated quickly and efficiently if we are to have a chance at pulling out of the current nose dive. Im all for giving anyone who wants to be an American a chance at that dream, but they have to truly want to be American and understand what that means. Remember Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Thank you for the wonderful post. I have always loved the
“U PLURIBUS UNUM” (Out of Many, One)
Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ taught: “A house, or nation, divided against itself cannot stand.”
Was it not our President Ronald Reagon that said: “ When we become a nation not under God, we will be a nation gone under.”
Yep, never have figured out why diversity is good or bad. Seems to liberals that it is a good thing. Still waiting for them to tell me why it is a good thing. They tell me that we should have diversity in government - (why - what is government suppose to do differently for some and not for all?) Sorry, the concept seems to elude me - I do understand and appreciate the different cultures and foods. Does that mean that government is suppose to advance some of these over others?
Still trying to understand this concept. If those here can explain it to me, I would appreciate it.
IMO when I hear someone praise “diversity” it means sit down and shut up-we- the power in control have rejected American and the founding principles-and have decided everybody who disagrees with us should be distracted into considering our “diversity” so they will not notice those they have elected -or those now in power are not Americans-Just look at the man in the WhiteHouse- The Constitution he swears to defend says Only a natural born citizen can have the Office— is he a natural born citizen? Where is his allegiance? My ancestors had come legally from Germany and Ireland and settled in Kansas before the Civil War.E Pluribus Unim.They earned the right to be Americans.By becoming Americans
Agree with you...
Still waiting for someone to tell me why diversity is a good thing and why Government should care...
Historically, government policies toward various ethnic groups immigrating to the U.S. have been to assimilate them into our culture. They are expected to seek citizenship, learn the English language, and obey the same laws as other Americans.
Our laws have always been designed to uphold the US Constitution and to uphold the basic ideals of the Declaration of Independence, i.e. “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
When a liberal speaks of of “diversity” , he means “multiculturalism”, which is the opposite of assimiliation. Multiculturalists believe that one culture is as good as any other, and that it is arrogance for our legal system to expect diverse cultures, genders, and races to the same laws.
Take for example, a fundamentalist Muslim who executes his daughter in an “honor killing”? Or a Haitian Voodoo priest who performs human sacrifice? A traditional judge and jury would find these people guilty of murder. That’s in the spirit of of assimilation. On the other hand, a liberal multiculturalist would celebrate “diversity” by holding these people to a different standard, like for instance having Sharia Courts to apply sharia law to a muslim. He might even want “freedom of religion” interpreted in such a way as to excuse the Voodoo priest from doing his thing.
We’re beginning to see th effects of the diversity fad in Europe and the U.S. Take the billy club brandishing black panthers who were intimidating voters in Pittsburgh (or was it Philly?) The case against them was dropped. The device used by Atty General Holder was to frame it as a “Civil Rights” case, then have it dismissed because “Civil Rights” protections were not intended to apply to white people.
Well Stated - I left out Islamic culture on purpose, wondering if those that want diversity would mention it.
Yes, I would agree that government and many others that think of diversity really think of multiculturalism...not the same thing...
You can NOT have a united America when many citizens think of themselves as citizens of other nations.
I think that you have said it better than I could, but am still wondering just why Government seems to want diversity at the expense of American unity. Seems like they want to divide and control groups instead of uniting them...
Something is very wrong here...
Diversity is the communist method to undermine our nation.
ROTOMONTADE: to boast or speak in a pretentious, self-important, or self-indulgent way.
I believe the author was engaging in a bit of self deprecation, possibly apologizing to the reader for any potential perceptions of blusterous pretention.
It’s a good word. Never heard of it before.
Another thing about multiculturalism. It guarantees a government dictatorship. If the citizenry buys into the notion that one culture is as good as another, then the implication is that those in control of our government can rule by decree, because any law they get passed, or any agenda that they adopt is as valid as one that is consistent with traditional ideas of our Constitutional Republic.
The left has been replacing the individual rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution with concepts such as “Civil Rights”, “Reproductive Rights”, “hate crimes”, “hate speech”, etc, which favor certain groups over others and progressively erode freedom of speech, the right to private property, and the sanctity of human life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.