Is Unity an Ultimatum?

Unity is a fascinating concept given modern day manifestations, with politically driven definitions and criteria aggressively asserted to subvert ideological deviation.  How do we reasonably facilitate “unity” in a “free” and “diverse” society?  Does “unity” qualify as excepting differences while allowing a seat at the table despite key ideological deviations, or does “unity” equate to forced and mandatory conformity despite contradictory tenements of tolerance, acceptance, and open-mindedness regularly evoked yet erratically applied?   Is unity an invitation and a two-way compromise, or is unity an ultimatum?

The modern mainstream indoctrination machine attempts to apply social unification as a brand of unconditional intellectual conformity, demanding compliance over freedom to dissent and critically challenge, despite themselves congruently expressing that freedom rejecting alternative standards, slowly attempting to eliminate any avenue to critically challenge an ideological position built upon an unstable foundation of emotion, perception, and a systematic collection of selective evidence structured to prove a preferred point versus illuminating objective truth. 

How do we find a right answer when we are forced to only look for it in one place?  Why is a contingent of society so threatened by opposing viewpoints that they seek to eliminate them through force versus intellect?  Why has the group whose standards are constantly changing appointed themselves guardians of “fact” and “truth”?  How do mainstream “liberal” definitions of “unity” and “diversity” intellectually co-exist? Does unity incubate the understanding of and tolerance for diverse alternative perspectives, or is unity an ultimatum?

Mainstream liberal “diversity” initiatives provide a convoluted conundrum.  The primary goal appears to be artificially manufacturing superficial diversity based on limited demographic characteristics politically exploitable and easily observed to prove “progress” while facilitating a preferred narrative.  “Whiteness” is now the antithesis of diversity despite diverse ethnic origins, backgrounds, languages, religious identity, and thought processes.

We promote racial “inclusion” by excluding people under the primary basis of race.  We promote diversity by forcing everyone to believe the same things.  In one breathe we will condemn racially divisive and harmful stigmas and stereotypes, and in the next talk about how “privileged” and “dangerous” white people are.  In one moment, we are supposed to unconditionally “trust” socially elected “experts”, and in the next, objective analysis is exchanged for a “my truth vs. your truth” mentality.  Let’s “trust science” until science shows us a face, heartbeat, fingerprints, and a reaction to pain; then we must comply to the subjective demands of liberal feminism, even though we can no longer define what a woman even is, essentially nullifying decades of activism and assertions.  We entrust women with subjectively qualifying which pre-birth humans deserve life and liberty, but we don’t trust them regarding who belongs in their sports or in their locker rooms?

In the name of tolerance and unity I must incorporate cultural standards which deviate from personal beliefs and preferences, while attempting to incorporate desired culture results in unbridled antagonism through often inept accusations of “cultural appropriation”.  We promote concepts that separate people by skin color in response to inequity achieved by separating people by skin color.  Rather than being judged for my content, I must answer for someone else’s perception through a lens of racial generalizations.  In a liberally influenced society, unity is an ultimatum, and diversity is an artificial process facilitated through division, glorifying physical attributes over content and contribution.

Under the protection of mainstream liberal “tolerance”, I am teased for not having my own cultural identity while the culture I partially identify with is available to anyone who wants it.  I am teased for not having my own cultural identity while I attempt to respectfully incorporate desired cultural traits denied to me under the basis of “cultural appropriation” despite much of culture existing historically and contemporarily as a result of “appropriation”.  I am teased for not having a cultural identity despite the historical implications of ethnic suppression and cultural assimilation. 

There are certain things I can’t say because of my skin.  There are places I am told I don’t belong because of my skin.  I have been literally and personally forced to apologize for my “whiteness” and my “privilege” in a college “cultural diversity” course. Whites have been publicly shamed for patronizing collegiate “multi-cultural” student centers despite being students and having culture often resulting from multiple heritages.   I am told America doesn’t look like me anymore.  I am told I am a dangerous, naturally occurring racist terrorist. 

This experience in modern America, basking in the overcoming radiance of unity and tolerance, is apparently a “privilege” too, all the while listening to Democratic politicians and their supporters erroneously and hypocritically assert conservatism as a “hateful” institution because they can’t rely on truth, logic, and reality to win elections.  As a white person I am told I am “over-represented” despite not qualifying my skin color as the primary basis of my identity.  Are average looking, slightly overweight, balding, hardworking Christian Conservative truth seekers really over-represented?  Didn’t we already do all this before to other populations?  Is this a manifestation of social justice…or social revenge?  Just because you feel justified, that doesn’t make it “justice”. If we improve “unity” by removing what refuses to conform, does this prove that modern mainstream culture uses unity as an ultimatum?

Should unity not be about acknowledging and respecting differences instead of antagonizing people for their differences in the name of unity and tolerance?  If we refuse to apply standards with even a moderate level of equality and consistent criteria, maybe we shouldn’t attempt to apply them at all.  Ironically, artificial applications of “liberally” interpreted representation, diversity, and tolerance are among the strongest ideological adversaries to objective and fair representation, diversity, and tolerance.

It is clear that MLK knew how to both fight the status quo and encourage unity.  He illuminated injustice through logical talking points, valued content over superficial demographics and categorizations, discouraged blind antagonism, and evoked Patriotism and Christianity.  It’s no wonder then, in the current era, we positively evoke his name, and spit on everything he actually stood for…

So how do you interpret a sense of “unity” in our society?  Are we forced to unify around mainstream liberal ideals, or can we come together excepting each other’s differences while fairly fighting battles deemed worthy of our efforts?  Unity is achieved through shaking hands, not shaking fists. Should we unify around subjective feelings…or facts and evidence?  Should we unify around peaceable divergence, or must you draw a line in the sand with your unused co-exist bumper stickers?