Drawing the Lines of Cognition

By Anonymous

It may be unlikely that intra-continental borders can be drawn according to the standards of the typical "racial" group. Given the intermixture of various racial categories throughout North America and the seeming concessions made by a small percentage of each of these racial groups to function as one (whether forced by policy or
otherwise), it seems that the distinction so readily applicable to politics of the past has been blurred. This indistinct method of group identity has some obvious restrictions regarding the political alignment of hybrid races, a problem that I'm under the impression Europe looks down at your average "white" American for in another
manner in accordance with their even more specific racial categories.

The driving forces behind the hybridization is often attributed to political policy but, a more substantial cause is the prolific availability of motorized travel coupled with massive and expanding populations of the aforementioned groups. Despite this, addressing the political aspect which encourages the acceptance of hybridization
is obviously an important factor because where motorized transportation is most abundant, policy and the attitudes it inspires are the only means of presenting choice to the individual who is as yet unsure of which group they identify most with.

The trend seems to be that politics increasingly denies any alternative to the practice of hybridization. This effects not only the implied union of two "racial" groups but, hybridization also applies to the landscape of intellect as well. If you were to envision the problem of hybridization, you could picture North America, or even the globe as a large organism composed of cells which are the groups of individuals who adhere to this policy or that. The policies essentially being choice, are shaken until these cell walls burst within the organism. Considering two needless world wars that caused suffering to all nations involved, the global atmosphere is that of a ripened bruise. The healing process is the re-establishment of these cell walls within the global organism, and the group (racial, political, religious, etc) recognition aspect of politics are the lingering nerve impulses of a severely damaged
appendage.

Perhaps reorganization in not only the North American continent but, the world would be better served by establishing new ideas for new borders. As simple and obvious as this may be, I think that one particular area requires improvement in this manner. That is the concept of race.

Race is not only a damaging buzz word that has lost its meaning outside of small groups of individuals who recall the deeper organic and intellectual meanings behind it as it applied to the older political atmosphere but, it cannot apply readily or practically to the existing biological landscape.

Assuming practicality is in mind, consider an alternative to the concept of race. Out of this bruise on the earth has come the concept of "diversity". It has been portrayed as a very positive state of being, and accepted as such worldwide in many areas. In fact, there are aspects of diversity which can appeal to the most hardcore of the right wing.

Diversity is most often a term attributed to a mixture of "races" which is the establishment of tolerance, and a wealth of other soft values. Yet inside of this terms conception exists hard values. Take for instance the prerequisite of a race, in order to make the recognition of diversity. Were there not multiple races within the diversity, there would be in fact a unirace, thus defeating the concept of multiculturalism and diversity.

Diversity and multiculturalism are bound to oppose hybridization, not only of race but of politics as well. It is in the interest of many within these groups to preserve that which is meaningful to them, that is what they identify with -in order to orient themselves in purposeful ways to the world as a whole.

Simultaneously, diversity is a concept which implies hybridization. There lacks in the concept itself an ability to draw borders (to draw the lines). Therefore, it represents that which is of value to those of identity and those of hybridization.

Within this double-meaning, exists a standard of speech so dull and uninspiring that the terms "diversity", "multiculturalism" have the potential to be used in ways that benefit either side of the debate:
identity or hybridization. This potential realization, offers a way to present the defense of the group as a choice again.

Consider the term diversity as equivalent to the racial group. New questions arise such as, "What diversity are you?" This question may have parallels of noteworthy consideration within the breakdown of the Christian church. Recall a common question, "What denomination are you?" in regards to one's religious orientation.

Religious denominization as a means of asserting group borders within a massive population and bruised theological infrastructure as compared to racial diversity as a means of asserting racial borders within a massive population and bruised biological infrastructure. In this way, no matter what the actual racial constitution of a
specified diversity, it may qualify as a legitimately recognized and acceptable identity.

Those who are intolerant of diversity when it fails to meet their specified criteria (whether it be the presence of a specified percentage of the old racial categories or religious groups, etc) may have a more difficult time asserting the claim of "intolerance" or a "lack of diversity" while they utilize measurements of racial composition against a group which does not identify with or utilize the methods of the older classification.

Can you slander a man or woman so easily if he is supporting white diversity, black diversity, UK diversity, European diversity, American diversity, etc?