How Much Diversity Is Good For The Nation?

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  Professor Victor David Hanson says history suggests that "diversity" is not a path to national success.
For John, BLUF:  E pluribus unum doesn't mean numerous individual fiefdoms with a common border.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Diversity: History's Pathway to Chaos

From Townhall, and the pen of former Professor Victor David Hanson.

Here is the lede plus three:

Emphasizing diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength, of nations throughout history.

The Roman Empire worked as long as Iberians, Greeks, Jews, Gauls and myriad other African, Asian and European communities spoke Latin, cherished habeas corpus and saw being Roman as preferable to identifying with their own particular tribe.&in so; By the fifth century, diversity had won out but would soon prove a fatal liability.

Rome disintegrated when it became unable to assimilate new influxes of northern European tribes.  Newcomers had no intention of giving up their Gothic, Hunnish or Vandal identities.

The propaganda of history's multicultural empires -- the Ottoman, the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian, the British and the Soviet -- was never the strength of their diversity.  To avoid chaos, their governments bragged about the religious, ideological or royal advantages of unity, not diversity.

Frankly, I like diversity, but I recognize there has to be a unity of political and cultural understanding.  We need a common understanding of all men being created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.  We need a common agreement on the value of capitalism and a place for small businesses.  We also need a place for faith, but without the belief that any religion should dictate to others, or substitute for government judicial judgements.  Finally, we need an understanding that DNA has no place in determining one's worth before the Government, before the law.

Hat tip to my friend Ricard Byrd.

Regards  —  Cliff