Japan, for example, is a largely homogenous society. One race.

This is about race? I thought it was about diversity vs. confromity.

Japan has five or six opposing political parties. The Japaneses follow
Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, and Islam. By no means do the
Japanese conform with one another. They have formed an *inclusive* society
around a number of diverse elements.


Yet the Japanese constantly out do the US in just about every endeavor,
education, technology, medicine, crime prevention, etc.

Which has nothing to do with racial homogeny. It has much to do with American
economic colonization of Japan following WWII, American experts modernizing
Japanese industries, etc.
Japan got a "clean start" in many respects
60 years ago. The cultural values of Japan, particularly the emphasis on thrift
and education served the country well during
the last gasp of claissic industrialism, the late 20th Century. Japan has been
in a very deep recession for many years, partially due to a lack of diversity
in investment and industry. Part of the recent economic downturn in the US was
due to a lack of diversity in investment choices. Far too much capital
following the herd into the dot.com economy. Ouch.

Recall my comment that creative energies are often spawned by the tension
between dissimilar interests. Such was the case in Japan following the Second
World War. There was tension between the traditional
Japanese culture and the new, more Americanized ways. It could be said that it
was during the period of this cultural tension that Japan experienced
sensational growth.

The relative racial homogenity of Japan would be impossible to achieve in
America by any acceptable means. Nor would it be desirable.

China and India too are both mainly homogenous societies yet are beating the
pants off the US in the manufacturing arena.


China is not at all homogenous. There are several *languages* spoken in China,
for heaven's sake! There are signficant and important ethnic differences
between northern, southern, and coastal Chinese.

Racial homegenity is not responsible
for the rapid growth of Chinese manufacturing. Plain old supply and demand.
Umpteen zillion people willing to work for a few US dollars a day- because its
ten times what they'd have otherwise.
That, and the fact that the Peoples Republic of China refuses to let its
currency float so that the laws of economics would eventually level the playing
field....(China moving up in cost as wages in the US increase less rapidly than
before or decrease due to increased labor supply here).


I'll submit that diversity, in itself, is what is eroding the core values of
the US, the rights and freedom of the individual, regardless of race, color
or creed.

Diversity, rather than conformity *is* the core value of the United States. Why
would we need freedom of speech, if we all were going to thing alike? Why would
we need freedom of religion, if we are going to worship alike? Why would we
need periodic elections, if we all supported the same political party and
ideals? Why would we need freedom of assembly, if we weren't going to recognize
differences between people and choose to associate, or not, with people of
various types and characteristics? If we eliminate diversity, freedom of
association is a moot point.


Enforced conformity is not an American ideal.

The US public schools are dismal as a result of its focus on *diversity*
rather than education.

The US Public Schools are less than they might be for a number of reasons. We
pay teachers substantially less the equally educated professionals with equal
responsiblities in other fields, (insert the rare exception to the general rule
here.............), thereby mixing the truly inspired, dedicated, altruists
with the washouts and underachievers. The American family all too often sees
education as something that goes on only at school. "Family time" in the
American household often involves no more interaction that everybody staring at
a common TV program, or watching 5 separate shows in five separate rooms.
We idolize athletes and musicians, not scholars. We're more likely to take
pride in our kids for being on a State Champion basketball team than for
winning debates, scoring well on the SAT, or being named Valedictorian.

Going back to schools separated by ethincity or demanding that "all the rest of
those people better start acting white!" won't corect the underlying social
factors that challenge our schools.

I am in favor of single race schools. The human race. Within our single race,
there are many different customs and perspectives. I am enriched by learning
more about my neighbors, but I would be diminished if I demanded that all my
neighbors act, think, vote, speak, write, or worship exactly as I do.

The proof abounds that diversity in and of itself does more harm than good.

If so, I invite you to present some. You have so far expressed some opinons,
but shown no proof. I have expressed some opinions as well, but as always, the
burden of proof is on the plaintiff. That's you, Mr. Plaintiff. Diversity is
the accused in this debate.

As it is difficult to prove a negative, I'll even accept as "proof" examples
of how totalitarian, conformist societies with little or no diversity in
thought, speech, religion, or ethnicity have made significant contributions to
the advancement of the human condition.
In fact, I'll generously even overlook attempts at nationalizing a "master
race" in the last century.



Further proof is provided that for the past few days my question, *Why is
diversity a good thing?*, has went

"has went"?

All things should be addressed in a moderate manner as there is more wrong
than good in a singular mentality.

Ok, how'd we get so far off the track at this point? Diversity is the only
*option* to a singular mentality. We either all think alike, or we don't. If we
don't, we enjoy diversity of thought and opinion.

To claim that diversity is universally good is disingenuous on its face.

Based on the reasonable, (although in my opinion incorrect), tone of your
argument I am going to assume that you don't fully understand the nature of
your penultimate
comment.

No, I was not pretending to be ignorant
in order to deceive when I disagreed about
diversity. Some would think it rather arrogant to hold an opinion that any
person able to construct an argument for a position counter to you own really
knows better, but has chosen to be disingenuous.
Either the arrogance, or a lack of understanding about the meaning of a
powerful word.

I'll grant you the latter. It wears better than arrogance. :-)