The title makes this sound like a research paper, doesn’t it? Well, in a way it is — but you won’t see any footnotes or scholarly annotations in it, because I don’t know where I picked up any of these images.
When I search for relevant graphics for a post, I often encounter a lot of interesting and/or appalling unrelated images. Whenever that happens, I save some of the choice tidbits in a folder for possible later use. Over the years I’ve collected several dozen of them.
Sometimes, during a search using particular keywords — examples include “multicultural”, “diversity”, “tolerance”, “inclusive”, “enrich”, and “ethnic” in various combinations — I uncover a vast lode of visual goodthink, a purulent sump of politically correct imagery going on for page after page of search results. At first my mind recoils from so much cloying mendacity, but eventually a sort of sick fascination sets in, and I keep on paging through the saccharine rainbow of Multicultural iconography, just to see what pops up.
Hence this collection. These pictures represent only a tiny sample of what’s out there, just waiting for you to gaze upon them so they can zap your degenerate bourgeois mind into a state of right-thinking rectitude. Try your own image searches using relevant keywords and see what turns up. But be sure to pack a supply of anti-emetics — you’re going to need ’em.
Standard Multicultural imagery functions as a visual shibboleth. Businesses, charities, educational institutions, and all levels of government must display the correct icons of diversity or expect to be cast into cultural outer darkness. The ideological guidelines are fairly rigid at any given moment, but they shift over time. Imagery that was acceptable and even laudable to display in 1960 has become doubleplus ungood, and hence unthinkable here in the second decade of the 21st century.
The first signs of what is now known as Multiculturalism began to appear in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, during the “Think Ethnic” craze that came flooding into the culture under the leadership of beat writers, abstract artists, folk musicians, and other KGB fronts. I remember seeing the earliest versions of those “small world” graphics of ethnic children that have become ubiquitous in the fifty years since. They featured a map or a globe with kids of various ethnicities standing on a representative piece of real estate. The Mexican boy wore a serape and the Japanese girl sported a kimono. The Eskimo kid was standing in front of his igloo holding a harpoon. Alpine types could be identified by their dirndls and lederhosen. In those days — late Eisenhower to early Kennedy — the spear-carrying African with a loincloth and a bone in his nose had already been ruled off the turf. But even so, the images that were commonly used back then would get today’s editors fired or expelled from school if they were so foolish as to publish them.
A more recent version of the costumed “small world” graphic is below:
This image is ideologically suspect by the standards of 2014. Notice, for example, the Hawaiian
babe person with her lei, her grass skirt, and her little strapless top. If that isn’t the objectification of womyn, I don’t know what is!
To resolve this sort of dilemma, the most recent “small world” pictures tend to drop the costumes entirely, since any given representation could at any moment become verboten as “ethnic stereotyping”. The preferred solution is to dress all the kids in the same shorts-and-tee-shirt kindergarten outfits and indicate their ethnicity by skin and hair color:
And here’s a paper-doll version of the same meme. In their holy diversity, they’re all made out of ticky-tacky, and they all look just the same:
Now let’s move on to the field of carefully staged photographs. These are widely represented in university publications, government handbooks, and corporate brochures. Every time I walk into our bank, I note the carefully-calibrated Multicultural posters for loans, mortgages, and savings accounts, each coded to appeal to the perceived demographics of the bank’s customers whilst toeing the Multicultural party line.
Here’s a collection of gospoda of all ages, gathered together to celebrate their unity-in-diversity with a reassuringly cheery bonhomie:
And here’s a slightly different group, clearly a workplace assortment with a demographic center of gravity somewhere in the Millennial generation:
In all of the above examples, one aspect of diversity is noticeably absent: the hijab. Whenever the Arab ethnicity appears, it is represented by a burnoose and a jalabiya on a male representative of the culture. Other varieties of Muslim dress may include the dashiki, the turban, the fez, etc. — but only males are depicted.
That’s a non-inclusive situation, and is quite sexist when you think about it. But it’s now beginning to change. Although the idealized workplace groups are still without the veil, as far as I can tell, the school groups are another matter.
The particular genre of Multicultural iconography represented below is an arrangement I’ve dubbed the “head wheel”. It typically includes groups of grade school, high school, or college students lying on the ground like spokes of a wheel with their heads at the center:
Notice the more recent evolution of the head wheel as represented in this photo:
It used to be that staged “diversity” shots of high school students showed everyone in standard Western outfits:
But hijabbed girls are being more and more frequently included in carefully arranged Multicultural school shots:
And is that a hijab on the little brown girl on the right side of this Montessori version of the “small world”?
These recent images of veiled females, including very young girls, are a sign and signal of the mainstreaming of the hijab in Western societies. Muslims have worked diligently over the past decade or two to rebrand the veil as an expression of “women’s rights”, so that any school or play group that forbids them becomes de facto “discriminatory”. And if there is one thing that any public administrator will go to any length to avoid, it is the taint of “discrimination”.
So the hijabs are creeping into the icons of PC/MC propaganda on all fronts. Watch for them to appear next in the idealized workplace shots.
For those who wish to create their own UN-approved Multicultural art, these crayons are an absolute must:
But be careful to choose your colors correctly! If your Sri Lankan kid looks a little too beige around the ears, it’s off to Diversity Training Camp for you, tovarisch!
The natural response to Multicultural iconography is an instinctive feeling of loathing and aversion. When I see these pictures, I just want to get away from them, to return to a world that is sane and normal.
My detestation of these images is driven by a deep anger at the essential untruth of them. They’re bogus. They’re codswallop. They have nothing to do with reality.
To underline the mendaciousness of these pictures, take another look at those hijabbed teenagers in the “head wheel” shot. No seriously Muslim family — one that requires its teenage girls to wear the veil — would allow those girls to lie on the ground so close to males who are not their relatives, especially infidel males. It simply wouldn’t be permitted. Their fathers, uncles, and brothers would punish them if they did, and might even kill them. We’ve seen too many depressing demonstrations of this tendency in various tragic news stories coming out of the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Germany, and most other Western countries.
In summary: these images are pernicious, dangerous lies.
Nobody, not even the people who manufacture these visual travesties, could possibly believe that they reflect the world we live in. Real humans — even PC Progressives — tend to clump together with their own kind. When forced by circumstances to keep company with “diversity”, they don’t chum around with differently-colored folks in exaggerated grinning good fellowship. They’re polite but reserved, and most likely guarded. They keep a certain distance.
Real camaraderie can only come — if it ever does — after months or years of close acquaintance, when full trust has been established. There’s no other way to bridge the instinctive aversions that everyone feels for fellow humans with a widely different genotype.
So what is the purpose of all this inclusive Multicultural flapdoodle?
Multicultural iconography presents us with what Konrad Lorenz termed “supernormal sign stimuli”. That is, they are a visual representation of a condition which doesn’t actually exist, but to which we are programmed to respond even more strongly than we do to reality. The manufactured Multicultural group shot is intended to fill us with an artificial feeling of warm affection and good fellowship. We’re supposed to feel it more intensely than we do within our own families and communities.
The big difference between supernormal sign stimuli in the animal kingdom and those churned out by the PC/MC propaganda brigades is that the former are instinctive and genetically based, while the latter are manufactured and imposed from the outside. They represent an attempt to override our instinctive programming that tells us we are happiest and safest among people with whom we share the largest possible section of our genome. It seeks to make us into something that we are not.
How well is it all working? Your guess is as good as mine.
The best way to find out would be to ask the Millennials. They’ve been absorbing this subversive iconography since their mommies first plonked them down in day care when they were in diapers.
And the Muslim Brotherhood has taken advantage of all this poisonous Progressive nonsense for the past thirty years or so, taking every opportunity to insinuate their Islamic memes into all those “diversity” viruses boring their way into the brainpans of impressionable young Westerners. That’s why the hijab is showing up now — their patient Islamic efforts are finally bearing fruit.
A couple of final notes about Multicultural imagery:
1. Try searching Google images for “diversity business”. I spent an hour or so last night doing exactly that, and the results were fascinating, albeit frightening. Diversity really is a huge business. Someone is shelling out billions and billions of dollars to all those consultants, think tanks, seminars, and focus groups.
Just check out the hundreds of photos of these diversity bozos giving each other awards. When that absorbs so much of their energy, you know they’re really raking in the green, big time.
2. Twenty or thirty years ago the Multicultural meme was accompanied by “rainbow” iconography. The trend may have originated with Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow PUSH Coalition back in the 1970s. The putative idea was that all different colors of people would come together and be like a rainbow.
Yet the rainbow rarely appears in these multiculti icons now. The reason? My guess is that it was successfully co-opted by the LGBT groups and the “Pride” movement. Everyone has seen the Pride parades where rainbow banners accompany the leather freaks and transgenders and g-stringed boy-toys. That’s not the sort of thing we want people to associate with our cute little Multicultural kindergarten kids.
So the rainbow had to go.