You make no point.
Present no facts
so...
This country has no fewer than 8 major Christian denominations
5 distinct racial groups
Multiple political ideologies
9 diverse goegraphic divisions
And we have ****** whose great fear is that ****** will soon no longer be the majority and Protestant no longer the major religious grouping and you're terrified that ******'s gonna be treated by the new majorities like ****** has treated minorities for 400 years.
The Romans didn't practice racial purity and heir empire lasted 500 years.
The Nazis who loved racial purity lasted barely 10 years.
In both instances they fell to racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse powers.
History. Fail to learn and...
The Romans as practicers of diversity and inclusion!!!!!!!!!! Now I've heard everything!!!
How about Genghis Khan as a promoter of Trans Rights? (Come to think of it, if you fell into the hands of his
soldiers, you might well get involuntarily transed!)
We cannot deal with reality, if we refuse to look at it. I've given you a dozen examples of where two different tribal groups lived or live side by side in the same country. Far from blending harmoniously together in a sweet lovey-dovey melding, they ended up fighting horrible civil wars with each other.
I assume you know nothing about other countries, which is typical for Americans. So how about this: pick a country -- how about Sri Lanka? -- and learn a bit about it, and then explain how your view -- "Diversity is Strength" -- applies there. Start here: [
Sri Lankan Civil War - Wikipedia ]
A quick summary: Sri Lanka is an island, near India. Its population is divided into Buddhist Sinhalese, and Hindu Tamils. (There are also Muslim and Christian minorities). They speak different languages. The Tamils are concentrated into the Northeast of the island. The place was ruled by the British and -- as happened elsewhere -- when the British withdrew, the diversity went to war with each other. The Tamils, as the minority, were mainly the victims. There were terrible pogroms before the civil war started.
Interestingly, the only Leftwing racist-chauvinists I know of were the Sinhala JVP, who were Maoists, supporting the 'Sinhala Only' movement. They waged a guerilla war in the early 70s and got destroyed, and again in the 80s. This Wiki article has the details [
Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna - Wikipedia ] although it downplays their anti-Tamil chauvinism. (If you can imagine a KKK group that followed Chairman Mao, you'll get an idea of the JVP.)
So here's a question for you: suppose the Tamils had not settled in Sri Lanka, where they were a minority among the Sinhala Buddhists, and had remained in locations where they were the great majority. No diversity, but ... no horrible civil wars with tens of thousands of dead, either.
Which would have been better?