The starting point for a progressive politics should be to attack that trick. What if the diversity of thought is about your sales plan? Diversity of skin color is something we should happily take for granted, the way we do diversity of hair color. Perhaps a fourth reason is the money he would make addressing the issue.
A world where some of us are black and some of us are white -- or bi-racial or Native American or transgendered -- is a world where the differences between us present a solution: First because, for all I know, George Bush does care about poor people; at least he cares as much about poor people as anyone else does.
The situation now is almost exactly the opposite; the left today obsessively interests itself in issues that have nothing to do with economic inequality. Indeed, at one point, the Times started treating class not as an issue to be addressed in addition to race but as itself a version of race, as if the rich and poor really were different races and so as if the occasional marriage between them were a kind of interracial marriage.
We would much rather get rid of racism than get rid of poverty. You get bigger crowds, a lot livelier party and a much stronger sense of solidarity for Gay Pride Day.
Various newspapers have run series noticing the growth of inequality and the decline of class mobility; it turns out, for example, that the Gatsby-style American Dream -- poor boy makes good, buys beautiful, beautiful shirts -- now has a better chance of coming true in Sweden than it does in America, and as good a chance of coming true in western Europe which is to say, not very good as it does here.
And these social entities have turned out to be remarkably tenacious, both in ways we know are bad and in ways we have come to think of as good. Indeed, it has survived even though what we used to think were the races have not.
From the standpoint of a left politics, this is a profound mistake since what it means is that the political left -- increasingly invested in the celebration of diversity and the redress of historical grievance -- has converted itself into the accomplice rather than the opponent of the right.
But while there may be more renowned cases with blacks concerning blood quantum, the issue is not limited to blacks, since Native Americans, Asians, and Latinos all have similar criteria for identification.
The scale of humanity, he suggests, has blacks on the bottom of the scale and whites on the top. He has based this conclusion on the lack of scientific evidence that confirms the existence of race.
The topic immediately refers to money and how diversity has been an issue at universities for much longer than we originally thought.
Two things happened here. And yet, it is the thing we have become most committed to talking about. It was not asserting that preference in admissions could be given, say, to black people because they had previously been discriminated against.
It is not possible to have researched every possible human facet to verify whether this statement is accurate. And the kinds of solutions that might actually make a difference -- financing every school district equally, abolishing private schools, making high-quality child care available to every family -- are treated as if they were positively un-American.
In the last year, it has sometimes seemed as if this terrain might in fact be starting to change, and there has been what at least looks like the beginning of a new interest in the problem of economic inequality.
While admitting to differences among humanity, Michaels prefers to see those differences in terms of class, not race. But Gatsby is not really about someone who makes a lot of money; it is instead about someone who tries and fails to change who he is. More fundamentally still, we should not allow -- or we should not continue to allow -- the phantasm of respect for difference to take the place of that commitment to economic justice.
My university -- the University of Illinois at Chicago -- is ranked as one of the most diverse in the country, but well over half the students in it come from Chicago.
Native Americans are not on the radar yet for diversity but will appear later in the book. The difference now is that diversity is defined by race, specifically, Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans 4.
In the second chapter, "Our Favorite Victims," Michaels ponders some very important ideas. As survey after survey has shown, Americans are very reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to the lower class and even more reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to the upper class.
His position—and due sarcasm—is well noted: His threefold purpose for writing the book is, first, to reveal how the notion of cultural diversity does not exist; second, to reveal how and why America loves race; and third, "to help alter the political terrain of contemporary American intellectual life" 7.
From the economic standpoint, however, what poor people want is not to contribute to diversity but to minimize their contribution to it -- they want to stop being poor. One way to look at The Great Gatsby is as a story about a poor boy who makes good, which is to say, a poor boy who becomes rich -- the so-called American Dream.
There are six chapters and a conclusion about the author. As would your skin color; some people might like it, some people might not, but it would have no political significance whatsoever.
Our commitment to diversity has thus redefined the opposition to discrimination as the appreciation rather than the elimination of difference.
The introduction twenty pages and the conclusion thirteen pages are essentially justification for the book.
No issue of social justice hangs on appreciating hair color diversity; no issue of social justice hangs on appreciating racial or cultural diversity.His threefold purpose for writing the book is, first, to reveal how the notion of cultural diversity does not exist; second, to reveal how and why America loves race; and third, "to help alter the political terrain of contemporary American intellectual life" (7).
Perhaps a fourth reason is the money he would make addressing the issue. Approaching the Diversity Essay Question Facebook Tweet Google+ Pin Email Many applications now have a question, sometimes optional, geared to encouraging people with minority backgrounds or unusual educational or family histories to write about their background.
The introduction of The Trouble with Diversity is merely a glance at Michael’s agenda and becomes quite confusing to an average reader. He spends a fair amount of time discussing how we have become engulfed in our, as Michaels puts it, “love affair” with diversity that.
Walter Benn Michaels believes that if there is one thing Americans agree on, it's the value of diversity. Katha Pollitt agrees, but as she wrote in the November 6, issue of The Nation, that, though "I wanted to admire The Trouble with Diversity, Walter Benn Michael's much discussed polemic against identity politics and economic inequality right away, I ran into trouble.
Dec 24, · That is why people tolerate mending, not ending, diversity programs, and why they are a bit deaf, just now, to egalitarian schemes. Once burned, twice shy. Christopher Caldwell, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, is at work on a book about immigration, Islam and Europe.
In his daring new book The Trouble With Diversity, he argues that cultural diversity obscures the more radical problem of economic inequality. Diversity, and its corollaries of difference, identity, race and culture, are harmful dreams that distract us from the one real haunting issue that defines us all: the growing gap between the rich and poor.Download