We talk about "diversity" and we work so hard to make minority groups represented throughout America and throughout Western countries. Nobody is worried about having whites represented in Zimbabwe, and the reason is that Zimbabwe is not the home of anything that is important or profit-producing in the world right now. The plain reality is that the industrial revolution in the West started off "not diverse" because it was simply involving only those whose culture conceived those innovations, and whose work saw them created. Essentially what's happening now (though no one will put it this bluntly) is that we're saying "okay, the West came up with the best culture, everybody wants to be a part of it, and we think it would be fair to let them." It would certainly be nice, I agree. But am I wrong in asserting that if all humans had an equal role in the development of the modern world, that there would have never been a diversity problem to begin with because everybody would have been a part of it as it went along? It's not really "diversity." We have diverse cultures throughout the world right now. All but one, left to their purely native devices, would have no electricity, no computers, no airplanes, etc. What we're saying is "we think the West should share its wonders with everybody." That's different than a doctrine of diversity that implies that all humans have an equal stake in the developments of the West, and that white people have been unfairly and unjustly keeping many people out for too long. The current liberal doctrine of diversity implies that if Western Europe never existed, all the other folks on the planet would be living happily in utopian democracies, with no oppression from the white man.. except the white man conceived democracy, along with everything else that made America a country that the world wanted to flock to. So what's going on?