Which of the 10 Lenses of Diversity is closest to your views?

[Blue3]

My views would be a mix of Transcendent, Integrationist, Colorblind, and Multiculturalist.



Meritocratist is simply not an accurate description of reality, unfortunately.

Seclusionist isn't right, that's "separate but equal."

Assimilationist and Culturacentrist and Elitist are basically saying "submit to our dominance / keep the old ways and make race a defining part of who you are / submit to our superiority,"

Victim/Caretaker is just stuck in that victimized mindset and doesn't help anything.

[dead0man]

in before the "this is too simplistic" from one of the "you know whos"


I went with Transcendent, Integrationist, Colorblind, and Meritocratist.

[Santander]

Pure assimilationist.

[Kingpoleon]

Culturalcentrist*, Integrationist, Meritocratist*, Multiculturalist, Transcendent

*Not a real word

[America Needs R'hllor]

My views would be a mix of Transcendent, Integrationist, Colorblind, and Multiculturalist.

Pretty much the same.

[mencken]

Mix of Assimilationist, Colorblind, and Meritocratist.

[Cashew]

Write in: Colorblind Transcendent assimilationism appropriationism.

[Mr. Smith]

I am a man of seeming contradictions on this one.

[Blue3]

I am a man of seeming contradictions on this one.

It's interesting to think about, isn't it?

[Devout Centrist]

Integration, meritocracy, multiculturalism. The best recipe for success is one where people are integrated, andaccept values from the majority culture while maintaining their identity.

One way to think of this is soup multiculturalism. All cultures interact, with a unifying set of values and principles. This is distinct from saladbowl multiculturalism, which leads to segregation and strangles exchange. It is also different from the idea of a melting pot, namely because a melting pot implies total assimilation.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I assume transcendent. I think any actions relating to "groups": nationalities, castes, races, ethnic groups, sectarian religions etc. that doesn't involve breaking down the artificial barriers between them and reinforcing our shared kinship as humans are toxic. Especially as by and large these discrete categories arose in the 19th century or later, we should work to tear them down (the most common reinforcer of this toxic identity politics being borders, immigration bureaucratic and the national elites that are most interested in preserving the nation-state model).

Likewise we should acknowledge that cultures are not the exclusive preserve of races or or groups, and people should be free to adopt the cultures they choose. Furthermore, people should not be forced to change their individual preferences based on the dominant culture of their surroundings (whether it be a government that restricts their individual choices or a kinship group).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What?

[jaichind]

Mix of Assimilationist, Colorblind, and Meritocratist.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Mostly assimilationist with some Transcendent, Integrationist and Colorblind I guess. I think the state should construct a dominant culture to maintain solidarity between social groups.

[parochial boy]

I assume transcendent. I think any actions relating to "groups": nationalities, castes, races, ethnic groups, sectarian religions etc. that doesn't involve breaking down the artificial barriers between them and reinforcing our shared kinship as humans are toxic. Especially as by and large these discrete categories arose in the 19th century or later, we should work to tear them down (the most common reinforcer of this toxic identity politics being borders, immigration bureaucratic and the national elites that are most interested in preserving the nation-state model).

Likewise we should acknowledge that cultures are not the exclusive preserve of races or or groups, and people should be free to adopt the cultures they choose. Furthermore, people should not be forced to change their individual preferences based on the dominant culture of their surroundings (whether it be a government that restricts their individual choices or a kinship group).

I would agree with this completely from an ideological perspective. It's important to remember that culture is not innate, or natural, and that it is developed by the way people interact, and the way they live together.

The last sentence as well, "national" identity is in many respects a form of divide and rule designed to reinforce the power of the elites by separating and silo-ing the rest of us. The idea that people with different cultures should fit naturally into different "nations" is patently untrue; there are many examples of multicultural nations working perfectly succesfully, which indicates that the nation as a concept as not necessary or natural in the way that people believe.

The current reaction against the multiculturalism driven by immigration stems much more from the economic status of the immigrants and of those most affected to immigration than it does from any inherent clash of cultures - so the real issue at hand is the way we have allowed unequal societies to fester than from allowing people with different cultures to live alongside each other.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Transcendent, Integrationist, Colorblind... I guess? But that doesn't mean cultures aren't important or that there shouldn't be some level of tolerance to them as long as they don't violate human rights.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Transcendent, Integrationist, Colorblind... I guess? But that doesn't mean cultures aren't important or that there shouldn't be some level of tolerance to them as long as they don't violate human rights.

Basically this. I'd add, however, that the popular notion that "all cultures are equal", more or less, is inane and frankly, insulting because:

a) culture is neither innate nor unchanging
b) no culture is monolithic
c) culture is an incredibly complex and at the same time, very sensitive topic - this combination means that we should be very, very careful here
d) saying that all cultures are ultimately the same is reductionist in the extreme
e) me saying, for example, that my (white, suburban, middle-class, American) culture is ultimately the same as that of any given person living in Paris or Berlin, Moscow or Kiev, Cairo or Tripoli, Tokyo or Seoul, etc. is not only untrue beyond the fact that we are all human beings (true!), but is also - ironic in the context of this particular debate - deeply insensitive to cultural differences and variations. Kinda like how saying that all religions are the same is insensitive to each religion's particular history, traditions, theology, and yes, culture(s).

[Cactus Jack]

A mixture of Culturalcentrist, Integrationist, and Multicultural. Nobody is the same, and culture plays a great part in that, but it should never be used as an excuse for oppression and mistreatment.

I also believe in a touch of the Caretaker thing, though I think that's the wrong word for it. An apology is at least owed for, say, the travesties dealt to the Native Americans, and I think we've reached a point as a country where we can maybe stop romanticizing certain figures and beliefs endemic to the 1800s.

[Del Tachi]

Assimilationist, meritocratist, transcendent

 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Assimilationist, Colorblind, Integrationist, and Meritocratist (with the proviso that a true Meritocracy does not and realistically cannot exist, but we should work to become as close to one as we can be).