Seeing the West Point grads is heartwarming. This multicultural group gives me hope towards the future. America isn’t perfect but we’ve got the strength of our diversity.
6 Likes
I dunno if “diversity” as such is either good or bad. If you’re part of a team in the military, all that matters is that you can operate as a team to your best ability. Whether you all have different ethnic or cultural backgrounds is neither here nor there, unless those differences can bring unique problem-solving abilities to the situation.
4 Likes
We’re Americans. I believe diversity makes us better and gives us an advantage over homogeneous populations. I’m frequently told by friends from immigrating from other countries that they don’t feel singled out in America. Great group of young people graduating at West Point today. Celebrating the young people.
7 Likes
You can believe that if you want, but most of the historical and sociological evidence suggests that the reverse is true, especially in a military context. Both the Roman and Nazi military machines fell to pieces when they tried to incorporate “diversity”. Machiavelli writes quite a bit about this phenomenon in The Prince.
OTOH those graduates are probably all from similar cultural backgrounds (I’d guess they’re mostly middle-class and upper-class Americans with a family tradition of military service) and that’s a good thing. If you’re looking at their skin colour, that’s not a useful indication of “diversity”.
1 Like
I’d disagree. Homogeneous countries like Taiwan, Japan, Korea are going to thrive as they don’t have the same levels of ethnic tensions as the US
Singapore is an example that the only way for everyone to get along is to force it.
I agree that it’s easier fpr homogeneous countries to get along. However, they don’t seem to do well with diversity. I think of the cram schools insisting on hiring white English teachers.
Well, since they’re doing so well without us. I guess we should all pack up and go home. We shouldn’t be here polluting the homogeneity.
2 Likes
Well it’s more culture than ethnicity obviously people of different race/culture/nationality can get along but if there’s a large group of people from the same culture different to the dominant one they’ll naturally prefer associating with each other. One reason I of course don’t have a problem with immigration so much as mass unchecked migration that’s bound to create problems in the future (but to even question it makes you a racist bigot)
1 Like
Diversity imo is only a problem when cultures don’t mesh well. Not all cultures are compatible with the same values. Some are fundamentally different at the very core.
Some countries understand this and are honest about it. Others are more foolish thinking all cultures add value. A lot of them don’t.
What’s the level of diversity?
I remember reading the following somewhere (paraphrased):
Benefits of diversity come from the fact that people no longer expect you to think like themselves. When discussing anything, people will assume (correctly or not) that the other party is not familiar with concepts/customs/etc that you are familiar with and will ask more questions .Same in reverse - you will not skip over details that you would assume (again, correctly or not) that the other party already knows. Overall this leads to fewer problems down the line since everyone will actually be on the same page, instead of assuming they are and then actually going in different directions.
So basically just the illusion of diversity should be enough. Can be mono-ethnic and as long as someone is not “in group” there will be benefits - eg. ABC coming back and everyone assumes that they don’t know local customs very well.
With the race riots going on right now? things are in a state and they are spreading out to countries that don’t even have diverse populations just because its trendy, that’s not a good thing.
I don’t see the point in celebrating diversity for the sake of it. it should be accepted, and it shouldn’t be treated as a negative. But what’s this need to act like its better than the alternative?
Things should be celebrated because they are good and because people like them not because they are diverse, that makes sense to me.
i’m sure america is great an all with all its diversity, but to me you guys are all… american.
1 Like
Seems diverse to me. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/army/502584-cadet-becomes-first-observant-sikh-to-graduate-from-west-point
1 Like
Sikh women are around one in a thousand in the US? I would guess around one in a hundred. But, the first one is a start.
2 Likes
could be less.
Maybe around one in hundred in the UK?
3 Likes
A former boss of mine at a multinational in the US was a Sikh. Really nice guy who was brilliant and always took care of others. I took Chinese classes and another student was a Sikh. What are the odds? 
Working as an engineer in a semiconductor company is kind of like working in a bubble. Not perfect but overall, I remember they have good policies and give back to the community. One of my semiconductor colleagues now works at Vanderbilt and she says our old company was much more altruistic than the university.
1 Like
I looked it up and you’re pretty much spot on.
Diversity does not seem to be a strength for the military but a weakness at this point with the lack of recruits.
1 Like
Is it ironic that the easy fix would be a gender neutral ethnicity-based draft, proportionally weighted to address historic injustice. The only way to have less racism in the army is to have more racism in the army!
1 Like
Rome wouldn’t exist without the diversity inherent to it’s expansion across the Italian peninsula via the socii, all of which on the peninsula were eventually granted citizenship. Without them, the Romans lose a ton of their calvary and army mass when they need it most; while relations were strained at times, generally the socii were more a strength than a weakness. And even at the Romans worst points, for example Cannae, the Romans still had a majority of socii by their side despite all the tensions between them - some of which were less related to ethnicity and more to the alliance forbidding war with other socii, among other unpopular terms of the socii alliance which simultaneously served to bind around 7 different large ethnic/tribal groups together while also creating friction between them. Much of this would be resolved to a degree by giving them citizenship. Without the socii, Rome never has the numerical equivalence or superiority over Hellenic armies to upend the post-Alexandrian Hellenic states.
An interesting tangent - the strength of Hellenic post Alexandrian armies comes from it’s calvary and it’s phalanx. Non-hellenic auxiliary troops would be added, but generally speaking not trained as Phalangites; they didn’t trust them with their strategies and formations. The phalanx was essentially an ethnic unit, limited to Hellenes. In contrast, the Romans let socii broadly manage their own affairs internally, but instead of asking for tax in tribute, they got soldiers. And these soldiers would generally be equipped by a military structure more likely than not very reminiscent of that of the Romans, given the convergence of Italian peninsular military tech, while also providing some of their own “local flavor” in form of calvary or whatnot. The Hellenic kingdoms were unable to fight Rome for extended periods precisely because of their dependence upon a Hellenic army made of Hellenes. Making friends with the locals, especially for example in Ptolemaic Egypt, was not made any easier by large-scale exclusion of the locals. And even when the locals were recruited out of necessity and equipped and taught Hellenic tactics, they were maintained within a lower social standing which eventually led to revolt. Referring here to the Machimoi Epilektoi. Meanwhile, Rome was swimming in manpower which essentially prevented a total defeat at the hands of any hellenic army, as Rome could lose a battle and recover; Hellenic armies only had so many Hellenic men to throw at the Romans before they ran out. Perhaps it was because of the relative (and bear in mind when I speak of tolerance in antiquity, we’re definitely dealing with relatives degrees) tolerance of the Romans that they felt safe having large numbers of socii forces bound just to them, and having armies consisting of 3 socii for each two Romans. They certainly didn’t treat them as equals - who in victory ever treats the opponent as an equal - but the extension of autonomy in contrast to the general Hellenic practice of a very clear dichotomy between ruler and ruled, along with (later on) forms of citizenship certainly played a huge difference in the relative power of the states. It’s a similar level of tolerance and autonomy-granting towards subject populations that made the Achaemenid Persians so powerful.
The empire probably wouldn’t have existed in it’s breadth without it’s broad religious tolerance “you perform the rites for my gods and our emperor you can worship yours (some exclusions apply)” which fit generally within the polytheistic pantheon of the classical Mediterranean – in fact, the Romans put in the effort to match their gods with the gods of other cultures in what is a surprisingly flexible and tolerant act (imagine the modern far right genuinely wanting to equate their Christian God with the Islamic – they’ll acknowledge they’re the same, but not take that next step). They made exemptions for Jews. (Further exclusions may apply to tolerance of Jews by individuals, as much like always, they were treated different as a recognized ancient monotheistic religion and their differences in practice aroused much suspicion which not infrequently led to violence). Many Romans themselves actually came to adopt the worship of foreign Gods - the Egyptian mysteries for one, the Roman pantheon itself is pretty clearly some cut and paste Hellenic religion (including sects such as the Eleusinian Mysteries), etc.
Some have argued that persecution of pagan religions following the big Christianity craze led in part to the downfall of the empire. It probably played a bigger role than the aforementioned broad tolerance, and definitely came at a time when Rome didn’t need any more destabilizing factors. It’s worth noting that revolts from the “diverse” portions of the Roman empire played a much bigger role during the “decline” period rather than the rise; I believe this is much more attributable to systematic issues and overexpansion among many other things than it is to internal diversity, which did at times act as a huge strength to it.
I don’t even entirely know where to begin with the “woke Nazis” incorporating diversity… The Nazi military machine fell apart mostly because of a lack of tolerance and diversity of thought and background, not for it.
I’m curious when the republicans went from an almost religious point of respect towards veterans and the military to shitting on efforts to encourage participation of minorities. Frankly I think it’s counterproductive, the republicans should encourage gay military recruitment. Simultaneously get rid of population your voting base generally likes less and tends to lean democratic and get troops. Win win. Jokes aside, I don’t know if you read the article, but I do think the following plays a major role:
For example, only 23% of 17-to-24-year-old Americans meet the minimum physical and academic standards for joining without a waiver and even fewer — about 10% — express a desire to join, according to an Army press release.
In a 2022 survey the Army commissioned, young people cited safety concerns and the stress of Army life as inhibitors to enlisting and also said they didn’t want to steal time away from pursuing other careers.
Also, the civilian job market is strong. Everywhere is putting up help wanted signs. For all except those duty bound or without opportunity, the military presents little incentive.
I’d be interested to see data post 1948 when the military was racially integrated, to see if there really is a connection there.
It’s also worth noting that since WW2, the us military has been on a model which implies higher turnover, which worked well for a number of reasons and works less well today for other reasons. This article from West Point written by someone who actually is involved in the military might prove enlightening..
Lastly, it’s also worth noting on the scale of faith in government, we’re not exactly at an all time peak. Nixon might’ve been bad, but Reagan picked it up later with a level of faith in the American people and the nation. If the wars in the middle east under Bush started the decay of faith in government, claims towards Obama of being a warmonger didn’t help, then trump wrapping up wars largely fought under his predecessors allowing him to claim his presidency as one of peace. Meanwhile he constantly erodes faith in us democracy via swamp rhetoric, allegations of voter fraud, etc., which stands in huge contrast to Reagan’s more optimistic rhetoric, and attempts from the Biden presidency to portray themselves as a uniting force are declined - perhaps not entirely without good reason, although the legislative pissing match against the president has been ongoing pretty much since the Obama admin so realistically, it’s just to be expected - and his health is constantly the object of conversation…
Kinda dug in a hole here. Perhaps military reputation has suffered a bit because of “the gays,” but I think realistically there are probably mitigating factors. As it also shouldn’t surprise anyone that the military is advertising itself to people who are traditionally not their main demographic. If recruitment is going down among their main demographic, they’re doing the right thing in advertising themselves towards new ones.
It’s all silly anyhow. It’s the military. Their whole purpose is war. I highly doubt going after gays women and minority ethnicities is going to dull that blade.
2 Likes