Diversity Past and Future / Part II

In the modern world, as discussed in http://www.sandpebblespodcast.com, the meaning of a word is its usefulness. The word “diversity” in normative speech is now primarily used as a nominal sign of political correctness without reference to or even foundation upon any words expressing any experience other than political correctness. Ignoring political correctness for a moment, what is the usefulness of the word “diversity” in speech referencing the living or even non-living?

 
In its simplest use, “diversity” in reference to life on earth generally refers to the variety of life in nature. Without doubt, one should be amazed to a point beyond rational comprehension on the variety of life on earth. From the deepest, darkest caves to the highs of earth’s atmosphere and back down to the hottest deep ocean volcanic vents, life somehow has gotten a hold and struggles to exist. However, even in this simple use of the word “diversity”, the struggle aspect is inherently part of it. The diversity of life in nature exists in harmony only if by harmony one means a constant state of war: from the smallest plankton soaking up the sun so that it can be eaten by sea creatures, to the spider waiting to catch a fly so that it can eat it alive, to the largest predator constantly patrolling to keep out competitors for the youngest or weakest prey in its territory, and onto the predators and scavengers of the sky looking down for unsuspecting prey or carrion. This harmony of this life diversity in nature is certainly not the harmony of politically correct “diversity”.

 
The same can be said of the diversity in the non-living aspects of the harmony of nature. Starting with a “Big Bang” and then continuing into the foreseeable future, unless the universe is destined to expand infinitely into a cold dark abyss, every non-living thing in nature derives from some form of cataclysms that luckily we do not notice in our daily lives because geological time is so much more extreme and even more rationally incomprehensible to us than the variety of life we try to concentrate on and need to concentrate on in order to survive. The harmony of the diversity of nature is certainly not the harmony of politically correct “diversity”.

 
Using “diversity” as a reference to pre-historical or proto-historical human life does nothing to improve upon this harmonious perpetual state of war. As up-to-date empirical discoveries and findings of modern archeology and anthropology establish of which many are available for further study in the magnum opus “War in Human Civilization” by the historian Azar Gat, the closer human society gets to be in a state of nature, the more violence is an accepted part of social diversity. Rousseau’s “state of nature” in which human freedom existed free of a repressive state apparatus or domination by fellow humans was delusional, as delusional as Hobbes’ version of life in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. If a pre-history or proto-history human could survive long enough, they could live a long, happy, healthy, prospering, and flourishing life in a state of nature — if they could survive long enough.

 

The reality is that the usual calm and peaceful lives of hunter-gatherers, pastorals, and early agriculturalists lived under a Sword of Damocles consisting of the constant threat of attack by neighboring hunter-gatherers, pastorals, and early agriculturalists. These attacks by neighboring warriors did not involve what we now consider to be old school warrior mentality or a code of mano-a-mano fighting. According to the archeological and anthropological record dating from the earliest Levant and Anatolia sites to the most modern Aborigine, Pacific Islanders, North and South American Indian, and even from 20th Century New Guinea Highlands sites, really old old school warriors saw the honor of battle as consisting of ambushes upon other tribes while they slept in the middle of the night in which all men of fighting age were immediately killed and beheaded as war trophies and the women and children taken as wives and slaves. The 20% male casualties rate for males through war and homicide of Aboriginals discussed in Part I is actually at the low end of the spectrum. In some Pacific Islander warrior cultures, it was usual to find in the historical record 33% war/homicide rates for males (that is an astonishing one out of every three males) and for archeologists and anthropologists to dig up entire villages burned to the ground with their beheaded male inhabitants buried in the rubble. No wonder Pacific Islanders were willing to risk weeks and thousands of miles at sea on giant row boats looking for new islands to inhabit hoping to find peace — which usually turned out solely to be a new battlefield. This harmony in diversity is certainly not the harmony of politically correct “diversity”.

 
Azar Gat in his “War in Human Civilization” goes on to describe how this warring “state of nature” became the enormous variety or diversity of life in ancient city-states and then nation-states. Basically, pre-historic or proto-historic powers-that-be consisting of small village chiefs or “big men” freely chosen to lead by small groups of warriors kept up with economic and technological developments by continually consolidating with or conquering other powers-that-be eventually to create city-states and onto nation states in which the powers no longer needed to rely on voluntary election by small warrior groups but instead relied on administrative enforcement of conscripted warriors through the law’s majestic monopoly on violence. As this developed, since the conscripted warriors could no longer conduct sneak ambushes upon unguarded villages in the middle of the night, the powers created a new warrior mentality requiring organization into, for example, a Greek phalanx or Roman century for battle. The ancient city-states accepted a great amount of diversity of ethnicity (usually treated the same as race), religion, tribe, and freeman/slave status in its society and ranks and inter-societal fighting among them as long as all paid their taxes and answered the call for battle without challenge to the powers. This harmony of diversity is not the harmony of politically correct “diversity”.

 
So what is the harmony in diversity that modern Western nation-states and their powers are crying about? They certainly do not mean humans creating and being loyal to a variety of actual or delusional physical needs, ethnicities, races, religions, or political or economic classes to the exclusion of all others so that through dialectical competition and struggle humans can evolve into the future of humanity as is true of the natural world and all prior human history. The exact opposite, the intent of new school diversity is to eliminate this type of old school diversity and the competition and struggle inherently in it. So, what is it they are looking for? Can it be the diversity described by the Bible in Isaiah 11:6, “[a]nd the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them.” Are the secular atheists and agnostics of modern Western nation-states ignoring history, archeology, and anthropology to define “diversity” as a word whose usefulness derives from Biblical hope and faith? Though they do not want to admit it, this is the only definition of politically correct “diversity” they use — only without the biblical reference. They want to skip the concepts of Divine Law and Natural Law and jump right into Human or Positive Law to force the wolf to dwell with the lamb, the leopard to lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion to sit together so that a little boy or girl can lead them.

 
So, this biblical/Christian version of harmony in diversity is the harmony of diversity intended by secular politically correct “diversity”. Is such possible by skipping the Divine Law and Natural Law basis for this concept of diversity (assuming the biblical references can be skipped) and going straight to the majesty of the law enforcing Positive and Human Law? How? By force? We will get along or else! Or else what? What powers will decide what “getting along” means?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s