Mississippi Inflamed . . .
April 16, 2005

. . . by a photograph of a white baby girl, above which there is the question, "Will She Be a Racial Minority by the Time She Turns 40?" In smaller print, the text below the photo reads:

Third-World immigration -- both legal and illegal -- is now running so high that whites are expected to be a minority race by mid-century. Will this be good for America? Everyone tells you to "celebrate diversity," but for whites to "celebrate diversity" is to celebrate their dwindling numbers and declining influence.

Would Mexicans "celebrate diversity" if whites were pouring across the Rio Grande, threatening to reduce them to a minority in their own country?

Diversity is a weakness, not a strength. Just look at your campus. Are different racial groups a source of joy or a cause of friction?

Don't just swallow slogans. Think for yourself.

Below that is the phone number and the URL for the web site of American Renaissance, which paid to have the ad printed in The Daily Mississippian. The mere appearance of that ad yesterday in the newspaper's print edition ignited such a controversy that an article condemning the ad appeared later in the day in the paper's online edition ( "The Daily Mississippian staff to print retraction, apology for inflammatory ad" by Joy Douglas, April 15, 2005).

I might quibble with the third paragraph of the ad. Sometimes there is strength in diversity. And, looking back a few years, I guess I did find some element of "joy" in the racial and ethnic diversity on the campus of the University of Michigan back in 1966, and it was more than just the fact that my roommate had some friends from India who would buy booze on our behalf. Of course, the engineered, over-hyped, super-sized, apotheosized version of "diversity" that has totally captured the third-rate minds now controlling even our "best" institutions of higher education is, indeed, a "cause of friction."

Just look at the online article. It states or implies that the ad and/or American Renaissance is "racist," "incendiary," "potentially inflammatory," "completely unacceptable," "offensive," hateful and "extremely inflammatory." We may state, "there is friction."

What is the cause of it? The mildly worded text of the ad, or the cult of "diversity," which has instilled into the minds of so many young people, including the students now caught up in a firestorm of controversy, the notion that certain ideas are absolutely true and never to be questioned?

The one thing you won't find in the article is any reference to or quotation from the actual text of the ad. That is interesting. The purpose of "diversity," according to its acolytes, is to expose people to different viewpoints so they can better understand all the diverse others who also inhabit our little globe. But if the student journalists at Ole Miss can be so severely vexed, without their being able to say why, we must conclude that "diversity" isn't working, and that any legal rulings based on the "diversity" rationale should be consigned to the ash heap.

*

(Here is the American Renaissance thread where the Ole Miss ad controversy is being discussed.)

 
Copyright © 2005

If you wish to link to this article, try copying and pasting:

<a href="http://m3peeps.org/02/mi.htm">Mississippi Inflamed . . . </a>

[Go to index for Web Log, Volume Two]

[Go to m3peeps.org home page]