Prominently published in The Washington Post recently was the below graphic. (Article).
See if you can see what is wrong with it:
Did you catch that?
If not, read the title and caption at the top. Now look at the data in the bar-chart at right.
Still don’t get it?
A Letter to the Editor, published on Saturday March 12th 2011, will fill you in:
Less diverse, not more
The interesting chart depicting the growth of the “non-white” population under 18 in California [“Calif. Latino population burgeons”, March 9] made the claim that in the past 10 years the under-18 population has become “much more ethnically diverse”.
Actually, it has become less diverse. In 2000, the under-18 population distribution was 35 percent white, 44 Hispanic, and 21 black, Asian and other. No single ethnic group constituted a majority. In 2010, the distribution was more skewed and therefore less diverse: 27 percent white, 51 percent Hispanic and 22 other.
In certain parts of the country, such as California, the growth of non-white populations shouldn’t necessarily be painted with the broad brush of “diversity”.
Tom S——r, Washington
Comment: The letter writer uses very restrained language, so the editors allowed this mildly-heretical letter to go through.
Allow me to go further:
The reflexive and casual use of ‘Diverse‘ here, when what was meant is Nonwhite, is instructive. This is Newspeak in action. A better example I cannot recall in my recent reading. The “game is up” in this case; they are exposed on logical grounds. (I’d further point out that the title of the graphic is “Minority Report”, implying a growing ‘minority’ population, yet Hispanics are now the majority. “Minority” is another Newspeak term).
In terms of hyper-PC Newspeak, this clumsy labelling by the Post ranks up there with that vacuous female TV anchor who, a few years ago in a live report, repeatedly referred to blacks living in a specific African country as “African-Americans”! [Update: See the video]
Now, one of Bob Whitaker’s aphorisms is “Anti-racist is code for anti-white”. In that spirit, it is sure fair to say that “Diversity” is code for “Fewer Whites” in today’s PC lexicon. The term “Diversity” is PC-Newspeak, and is worth attacking and mocking as the craven form of social-manipulation that it is.
A final point:
The article itself has a certain snide, supercilious, and celebratory tone. (It shines through, even amid the carefully bland, restrained tone of the Respectable Newspaper style). There is a Dog-Bites-Man nature to even pointing this out, I concede. It is expected from the Left and probably even a good share of the Fox-News Right at this point.
A: Diversity is good. (We are told this over and over).
B: “Diverse” is code for “Less White”. (See above).
A+B = Less-white is good. (The logical conclusion.)
— If the Washington Post supports (what it here calls) this “increase in diversity” (= decline in White population), would it also go all-in and support 100%-“Diversity”, i.e. the total disappearance of whites from California? And, to take the argument to its logical extreme, would the Washington Post support 100%-“Diversity” (as here defined) for every white nation? If not, why not?