Diversity is Just Another Word for Tribalism

ATTENTION: Major social media outlets are finding ways to block the conservative/evangelical viewpoint. Click here for daily electronic delivery of the day's top blogs from Virginia Christian Alliance.

Why this happened in America

  • Do not look at his appearance… for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7)

So, how did America start to retribalizeVictor Davis Hanson, in a recent YouTube video says, “I think part of it came out of the ‘60s, that in the evenness to create parity, groups that were extremists said, ‘You know what… it’s not enough to be equal because we were unequal all these years, so we have to be more than equal.’”

He goes on to describe how government intervention gave legitimacy to a forced and flawed program to empower those who believed they were disenfranchised:

“Under the Johnson Administration it was sold as perfectly acceptable to think we’d have a period of 10, 20, 30, or 40 years of Institutionalized Prejudice. But they didn’t call it quotas. Instead, it was called affirmative action.”

“If somebody is not part of the majority ancestry, i.e., white,” Hanson says, “then, we will give extra consideration to the idea of past bias, or perhaps our present biases, then we will all be accepting of that idea. But, as the so-called white population started, in proportional terms, to decline, more and more groups, decided that they were victimized, then the number of people with complaints against the majority grew and grew.” The so-called majority, at this pace, will be eclipsed by some other race in due time.

While social engineering has often been tried before, it’s under-appreciated that, during the Obama Administration, specifically 2009 to 2016, a radical concept emerged that finally threatened the very foundations of U.S citizenship. This was the idea of… diversity.

This is how and why, if one definition doesn’t fit the Left’s racial strategies, they will then just create one that will. 

Case in point: Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)

In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university’s use of racial ‘quotas’ in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school’s use of “affirmative action” to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances. The case involved the admissions practices of the Medical School of the University of California at Davis. The medical school reserved 16 out of 100 seats in its entering class for minorities, including ‘Blacks,’ ‘Chicanos,’ ‘Asians,’ and ‘American Indians.’ The rigid admissions quota was administered by a special school committee. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was twice denied admission to the medical school even though his MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmark scores were ‘significantly higher’ than those of some minority applicants recently admitted.”

We would appreciate your donation.

This is the singular glaring problem with racial quotas: they have no bearing on performance or equality. Meeting the desired result—namely parity—is all that matters, and nothing else.

Bakke sued the University of California in a state court, alleging that the medical school’s admission policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The California Supreme Court agreed, finding that the quota system explicitly discriminated against racial groups and holding that, “No applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race.” The medical school, ordered to shut down its quota system, appealed to the US Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1978. Their ruling was as follows: Bakke decision, formally Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, ruling in which, on June 28, 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court declared affirmative action constitutional but invalidated the use of racial quotas.

To see where this kind of reasoning can lead, all manner of different people groups assume they can flash the race card with any ethnicity to which they belong. Compare employment applications of the sixties and seventies to today: Where did White Hispanics enter into the picture? Now, other “titles” must include the potential claimants remaining to be cataloged—like the “gender” crowd. We once called this kind of compartmentalizing, Balkanization—in other words, to break up (a region, a group, etc.) into smaller and often hostile units.

Healing from Toxic Whiteness: The woman behind a course helping white people tackling internalized racism, 
reads the headline from the left of center UK publication, “The Independent.” 

Sandra Kim
, [the US-based founder of the Everyday Feminism website], (pictured) “…thinks she has the answer with her course Healing from Toxic Whiteness. And in these tumultuous times, she suggests the course is more vital than ever.” Of course, she will never gain wide-spread acceptance when she identifies white people as toxic. Anyone who would describe an entire people group as “toxic” is in fact the far larger problem. 

“Her course aims to break down everything we think we know about race. Kim acknowledges that the term ‘toxic whiteness’ will be seen as offensive to a lot of people. She has been accused of racism towards white people and being a ‘hardline feminist.’” 

Really? For people like Kim, who has managed to build a formidable blogging empire, with over 4.5 million monthly visitors from over 150 countries, and a team of over 40 writers, the scam of using racist tropes to teach people about racial disparities of racism, only makes her a successful racist. She’s excused of course, because she uses the highly nuanced form of racism called: intersectionality.

But that’s because white people don’t understand that they’re not actually ‘white’ at allargues Kim, but rather that is a concept that society conditions them to believe.” 

Well, sure. Anyone who would look at me will know that’s true, because I’m not actually white. I’m a shade of pink. We are expected to catalog people by the color of their skin—even if the actual color is not really accurate. The issue is, at the core of it all, is the antonymous language we use for inclusiveness. We prefer to make comparisons for the purpose of identifying what’s different about other people and people groups. The truth be told, that’s the first step in developing a really robust racism.

“Can a multi-racial society actually survive?” Once again, Hanson tackles this question in another YouTube video. Here, he gives a well-articulated explanation to how we arrived where we are now in this present day and age, and where we might be going. The hope for sustaining the hard-won battle to stem the tide of racism grows dim, and maybe we should question if the idea of a multi-racial society is actually sustainable when viewed through history.

The evidence of how big of a battle this has been down through the ages can be found in the countries around the world that can’t even come close to America’s accomplishments; and Hanson lists them one by one. Of all nations, America is among the least racist and the most open to citizenship.

As is often the case, the blame lies with our continual fascination with theories and postulates that were literally developed centuries ago by the likes of Darwin, Marx, Hegel, et al. Yes, there really is nothing new under the sun.

Darwinian evolution is inherently racist, as demonstrated by crimes against Australian Aborigines and others, while the Bible summarizes a more hopeful and truthful picture of human equality.” —Ken Ham, “One Race, One Blood” For Christians, there is but one true diversity:

  • There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4 KJV)

Cover photo: Victor Davis Hanson

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views the Virginia Christian Alliance

About the Author

Shenandoah Christian Alliance
Shenandoah Christian Alliance is a Christian organization devoted to the promotion and education of biblical truths, faith, and spiritual equipping. We believe in the sanctity of marriage as defined in God’s revealed word. We oppose the practice of abortion, and respectfully object to its funding and facilitation as currently promoted by our elected leaders. We understand homosexuality to be something that God—whom we worship and honor—does not approve among his creation. Our faith in God as revealed in scripture is not something we are ashamed of, or for which we must apologize.