Thomas Jefferson warned us that, while the African slaves would need to be freed, that once emancipation had occurred they would need their own country separate from ours if we expected to be equally free.
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:72
Likewise, John Jay understood that homogeneity rather than diversity was both a blessing and a prerequisite for social cohesion:
"I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." -- John Jay, Federalist #2
More than 200 years later, along comes Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and notes: "Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can make a difference."(1)
Naturally, being a liberal Harvard Professor and because these facts contradict both the Professor's preconceived notions and the conclusions that diversity advocates demand, Putnam delayed publishing these findings until he could invent some way to positive spin on them, stating that releasing the facts without a positive spin would be "irresponsible."(2)
His positive spin, based strictly on invalid apples to oranges comparisons, is that diversity is good in the long run. He bases this conclusion, naturally, on historical immigration of people who were of slightly different ethnicities, but of the same anthropological race. He has absolutely NO positive data to indicate that multiracial diversity carries ANY long term benefits.
So skip the spin and concentrate on the facts. Diversity doesn't build community, it destroys it. It makes people feel isolated and to withdraw from community life in every way that matters. Thus diverse communities are WEAK communities.
Of course, we didn't have to tune in to Professor Putnam to know this -- the evidence is clear every day to anyone who has eyes.
(1) Putnam, Robert (2007) Quoted by Philip Johnston 6/19/2007 in the
(2) Lloyd, John, Financial Times, October 8, 2006