Do you think that we have a dilemma regarding racial diversity? You probably never thought much about it, but the Supreme Courts sure has. Currently our liberal universities have gotten on the band wagon that "we" need for our colleges and universities to be populated by some diversity index for them to educate our children. They don't think that you can understand a person of a different race unless they sit next to you in a college class room, but there is a dilemma and that is the point of this blog.
I have been into genealogy for some time and have discovered many interesting things as a result. None of it has anything to do with diversity, but it helps a lot to understand why we have a dilemma. I think that one of the best ways to deal with this question is with a simple example. You know from your history lessons that a lot of white blood got mixed with the black slaves here in the USA. Even our President Thomas Jefferson mixed some of his. I am part Native American and in my research, I found that the Native Americans intermarried with both Whites and Blacks. All of my kids have blue eyes and pass for White. Rather, they are counted as White. In my research, I found that 90% of Blacks also have some Native American blood as well as White. By contrast, I found that 90% of Whites have no Black or Native American blood. With me so far on this? Now how does this affect diversity? This is where the dilemma comes in.
Another fact that I learned from my research is that Native American characteristics are recessive. That means that when mixed with another race, the children tend "not" to look like Native Americans. When people today, "ask where have all the Native Americans gone?" The answer is that they are all still here and mixed in with both Whites and Blacks. By contrast, the characteristics of the Black race tend to be dominate. That means if a Black person has kids with a White person, the kids tend to be Black. The affect of all this is to create a population that has a lot more people who look Black and a lot fewer who look Native American. If you were to consider them in terms of the amount of Black and Native American blood, there would be a lot fewer Blacks and a lot more Native Americans. See how this is leading to a dilemma?
When Whites, Blacks and Native Americans are considered as a group, there are more Blacks and fewer Whites and Native Americans than the true race defined by blood would indicate. Now when we create a policy based on race, we need to better define race than just the skin characteristics. We would never define any animal breed based on such a weak definition, yet we do when it comes to our colleges and universities.
There is another point to all this and that is the "base population" that is used. If we have a college in Alaska, do we define the diversity mix by just Alaska or the whole USA? Why don't we define it by the whole world? That is just about as logical. How about Hawaii. What is the base line there? What if it is a college in Detroit or Philadelphia? Should they use a different number? Unless a person has done some genealogy research, how would they or anyone else know what their true racial mix was. How about a person with a dark tan or an albino? See where this is all going?
The USA has been from the beginning, a place where a person is judged on their individual merits and not their race or prior station in life. Any attempt to screw with this simple and fair concept is doomed to fail in the end and that is exactly what appears to be happening right now. It is creating more harm than good. Notice how "one movers" only consider the good and never the bad affects of anything. I guess that we have a bunch of "one movers" promoting Racial Diversity too.
PS------Why isn't Obama considered the first half white President rather than the first "Black" President? See how stupid all this is?
PS----There was a token Black on the Fox News this morning who felt that we will figure out how to "create" more energy and thus compensate for Obama's war on coal. Think about the quality of life that we could have had, had we "created" all this energy and still had cheap power from coal. "One movers" forget about the "with" and "without" economic analysis principle. I guess that is why they are "one movers".
