CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Not too long ago, there was a little item on Yahoo about the Cherokee nation voting out some descendants of slaves that got me to thinking about that bullshit bugbear we call cultural diversity.

Historically, stronger cultures have always suppressed weaker ones (if not outright destroyed them). But what exactly does it mean to be a "stronger" culture?

The most obvious answer to this question will surely take into account the power of technology and its direct connection to cultural superiority. But it only prompts another inquiry. How is it that one culture develops technology so much more quickly - and effectively - than another?

Try as I might I can only think of one answer: language. And I no sooner say it than I experience a flashback to a scene from one of my absolute favorite movies, My Fair Lady. I can clearly picture the face of professor Higgins, in the midst of one of his fervent tirades on language, vindicating the glory of the English tongue by saying, "It's the language of Shakespeare and the Bible."

It reminds me of an old saying: the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I would apply the message of this saying to the worthiness of the language which produced the two greatest literary pillars of Western civilization.

The merit of a piece of writing is judged by its effect on those who read it. Shakespeare and the Bible are so highly worthy because they have the power to actually lift us from a lower level of aesthetic sensibility (and philosophic awareness) to a higher one. In other words, they have the power to transform us, to make us better than what we would be without them. In plain language, both the Bible and Shakespeare have the power to change us. (Notice the use of the word "power.")

But the Bible and Shakespeare would not be what they are without the English language. The logic is simple. If the Bible and Shakespeare are powerful (which they are), then the language which is responsible for their creation must also be powerful, powerful enough to create the ideas that we know of as superhighways, skyscrapers, computers, space shuttles and so on.

It is true that other cultures also build superhighways and computers, but who created the technology that makes the modern world possible in the first place? Who had the original idea? What culture is it that seemingly every other culture in the world tries to emulate?

Have you noticed the dress code at the United Nations? It is a telling thing. With but few exceptions, all of the members who sit in that assembly are dressed in (usually dark) suits and ties, the same attire made fashionable by leaders of all Western nations, clothing designed and popularized by primarily English-speaking peoples, but, to be sure, other European nations as well. The primary violators (if you will) of the dress code are representatives from certain African and Middle Eastern states, areas of the world where all the trouble seems to be brewing.

The language of white Europeans (including Americans, who after all are merely transplants from that part of the world) propelled us into space, developed computers and all the other electronic hardware and software that seems to be so rapidly spreading all over the world.

By contrast, I cannot imagine the language of "ghetto" blacks accomplishing anything that even comes close to what the language of white Europeans has achieved. The Asians seem to have the ability to mimic European-based technological successes once they are given the blueprint. In fact, they can probably do it better. But they did not come up with the ideas in the first place. They merely appropriated them, copied them and sometimes even improved them. But we (i.e., those who speak the various languages of Europe) thought of it! That makes us the Creators.

Now we are encouraged (if not downright coerced) to respect cultural diversity, to recognize the worth of all cultures, whether they are blessed with the ability to conceive and develop new technologies or not. After all (it may be argued), aren't those technologies poised to literally take over the planet? Aren't they, as we speak, threatening to radically change it, to warm it up excessively, poison it, possibly even make it inhospitable to life if left unchecked? Maybe the Creators aren't so superior after all.

Somehow, I don't think so. The true Creators, if nothing else, are highly resourceful. They will make it work. They always do. There is only one thing that will undo them: embracing cultural diversity. If the superior mixes with the inferior the result is always mediocrity. This is essentially what we are being asked to do whenever we're admonished to accept other cultures as equally worthy.

Please note that I am not talking about races of people, but cultures and their languages. There are many blacks who staunchly maintain a healthy distance from the culture of the ghetto, who speak the Queen's English quite well, and who, as a result of their mastery of that language, enjoy successful careers and meaningful productive lives, who, in other words, make a very positive contribution to the culture that that language created.

By contrast, many more of them absolutely refuse to leave the ghetto. And I don't mean physically leave it. They prefer to continue to wallow in its culture, with its cRAP language. Some of them become so good at dishing out the cRAP that they become famous and get record deals and make millions of dollars (even win Grammy nominations which is unspeakably absurd).

But only some of them, a very small handful. The majority remain in the poverty and squalor that such cRAP language creates. Yes, the blacks in the ghettos remain in the ghettos because of their language skills, not because they're black. Their color has nothing to do with it. To think that it does is total cRAP. The plain and simple fact is that cRAP can't build a bridge, or a super highway, or a computer, hell, not even a house. Come to think of it, I doubt that cRAP could even dig a ditch.