|
When I lived in the Houston area about 20 years ago, one of my tennis partners was rather unique. Fred, an African-American gentleman, was a retired military officer and teacher. He was still relatively young, early 50s, and used to speak repeatedly about the need for diversity in all aspects of US life. His “contribution” was three booklets he wrote for inner-city middle schools, which were mainly about how-to-speak-white. He also admitted to me (with a wink) that he used his sales pitch to get dates with single female school administrators, which I observed first hand was a successful strategy. I have to admit I admired his exploitive creativity. ASIDE: I know I shouldn’t have to mention this, but ladies beware; almost everything a guy does is a trick. (We just want to be close to you.) I thought our country had quite a bit of diversity what with the major cadre of US population (about 62-percent) coming from various European cultures—but I knew Fred meant racial diversity: Latins, Africans, Asians, etc. The idea behind the theory is that different cultures, creeds, races, and their contributions strengthen the whole—make society stronger. I don’t disagree. Fred said that particular point-of-view was being presented in Texas schools’ social studies programs as a way to create a better America. A problem seems to be that “race pride” has been a reason for cultural divide among not only immigrants, but those whose families have been in the States for decades. For instance, Mexicans in California, mostly those who entered illegally, are trying to recreate Mexico there in the name of (get this) diversity. They fly Mexican flags, refuse to learn English, and beat up kids wearing USA T-shirts. Excuse me, but if Mexico is so great, why are they here? To be fair, Europeans did the same thing until cross-marriages created a true melting pot. Cities had German-town, Greek-town, Italian-town, etc., etc. New York City had Harlem, and Spanish Harlem. BTW, the section called Harlem comes from the original Dutch settlers of the city. Amsterdam has the original Haarlem. (That is NOT a spelling error.) I had a German fraternity brother from NYC who said to be caught in a quarter that was identified with another ethnicity was to risk a beating. He was a very fast runner, which he said was from having to pass through a “different” neighborhood on his way home from school. So, the city was diverse, but the neighborhoods and people were divisive. Tricky Dick Nixon added to the divide by labeling, for political purposes, all Latin-Americans as Hispanic. Before that, their hyphenated identification referred to their country of original; e.g., Cuban-American. The term Hispanic technically refers to one from the Iberian Peninsula—Spain and Portugal. Those people are as “white” as Hungarians, Russians, Serbs, Czechs, etc. I have a tennis partner and friend from El Paso with a Spanish surname whose grandparents were Spanish and Polish. He married a girl from Juarez who is regally Spanish. They have more in common with me (Swiss) than Nixon’s stereotypical Hispanic people. The Latin-American cohort of the US population is now 18-percent and climbing, far surpassing those with origins from Africa—about 12-percent. Those who oppose mending our leaky southern border maintain we should let illegals continue to pour in because of “diversity”. A nonstop horde of illegal Mexicans does NOT create a diverse society; and the issue is causing more divisiveness. However, the subject is not confined to only political and racial arenas. It’s social as well, and has been used by Socialists and Communists for a century or more to stir up hate, discontent, and class envy. Many modern day Democrats identify as Progressive and/or Democratic Socialists, a group dedicated to pointing out status differences as a means of gaining political power—votes. That and nothing more. Their so-called leader, Bernie Sanders, constantly rails on the subject yet himself is a wealthy man owning four homes. Then there was the issue of Bernie’s wife bilking $9 million from a university. Actually, that hypocrisy does follow the socialist reality where a ruling proletariat is corrupt and wealthy, and the hoi polloi have zip—like Venezuela. BTW, corruption is not a socialist condition; it’s a human condition, hardwired into homo sapiens DNA. Saul Alinsky wrote 12 rules for community organizing, which became a vehicle for Barrack Obama, and a theory espoused by Hillary Clinton when she wrote her 1969 thesis. Alinsky maintained that socialism must win, and capitalism must die—by any means possible. Here are three of Alinsky’s rules pushed by the Democratic Socialists today: Rule 5) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon; Rule 10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through to its counterside (i.e., what is evil becomes good); and Rule 12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Decades of indoctrination by unions like SEIU and NEA have about half of the country on board. Here is a recent example to show how socialist theory applying Alinsky’s tactics, as a means of divisiveness, functions in US society: A Palm Springs lady throws an annual New Year’s Eve party for 50 to 60 guests. She, recently retired, made a living selling upscale properties in that desert community. The annual event began decades ago as appreciation for her clients and neighbors, and has become a Palm Springs semi-formal tradition. Some returning attendees come from as far as Germany and England. Party goers arrive well-dressed; women in nice gowns, and many men in black tie. In short, it’s a nice, mellow evening enjoyed by all. Looks a bit like a 1930s movie featuring William Powell, Myrna Loy, and Asta. Actually, a next door neighbor is a vintage motion picture actor from England who once made out with Rhonda Fleming. There you go TCM fans. It turned out that an individual with whom I am very close, upon seeing a Facebook photo of three formally-dressed couples holding Manhattans, was deeply offended. He was invited, but wrote he cannot put up with “that opulent crap” (i.e., the “target” for ridicule), which was punctuated by his utter contempt and vehement distaste of people in “tuxedos holding martinis” (i.e., polarization). I appreciate that he doesn’t care to attend that kind of event, but I do not appreciate that he made a value judgment based on what people wear and their choice of drink. Sounds like pure Alinsky applied Marxism to me. For instance, there is an earlier picture on Facebook of him and friends in street clothes in a tavern holding beers. My question is: Other than choice of dress and beverage, what’s the difference? I happened to be in both pictures, and can tell you there’s not an ounce of disparity in thinking and worldview among those in either picture. Another coincidence: Both photos feature avid Ohio State and Michigan diehards peacefully co-existing. Yet somehow beer versus cocktail, sweatshirt versus tux, and Palm Springs home versus Midwestern tavern feeds the Marx playbook. Further, the one “offended” indicated he no longer wants anything to do with any of the well-dressed gala attendees—including (and maybe especially) me. The thought of being shunned for something so shallow made me momentarily glum, but I quickly recovered. Life is not about fulfilling objectives or behaviors others have for you. Imagine having the audacity to wear a tuxedo! (I’m on my fourth such suit of clothes, my past requiring me to attend black tie events on occasion.) So, in this world of travail and cheap wine; of diversity and divisiveness, who is the snob; the elitist? You decide. Copyright 2018 by Gene Myers, poster boy for a modern pince-nez.
Related Articles -
racial diversity, race pride, Tricky Dick Nixon, Saul Alinsky, Marx, Palm Springs,
|
