When Inclusion Does Not Include Everyone

How Progressive ‘Inclusion’ Is A Ruse For Exclusion

I grew up in southern Arizona, the daughter of a Cuban immigrant.  I’ve spent my entire life in AZ and I have only ever met one other Cuban person in my state, ONE.  I spent my entire childhood being asked about my ‘Mexican’ father and whether he was my stepdad because we look nothing alike. I’d tell them he's actually Cuban and he's my real father. Then I’d be asked what's Cuban and after explaining it, I’d promptly be told I didn't ‘look Cuban’.  It was annoying, to say the least. 

As I got older, adults around me generally knew what the country of Cuba was but I’d still be questioned why I didn't ‘look Cuban’.  Most recently at a doctor’s visit with my now elderly father last year, his doctor pointed to my skin and give me an inquisitive look.  In other words, why don't I ‘look Cuban’.  

My whole life I’ve been part of an ethnicity that was non-existent where I live.   In college, I thought surely they’ll be Cubans there.  Or at least people who know and maybe understand Cuban history and culture and how communism has shaped so much of our experience.  And to my great disappointment-there wasn't.  There were no Cubans at the University of Arizona that I met.  And in the rare instance that Cuba was brought up in class, it was generally to showcase how well communism worked there.  

At the time I still had family on the island who would write to my grandmother asking for basics like aspirin and toothpaste because they couldn't get them there.  If Cuba was so great why are the Cuban people writing to relatives in another country asking for basic essentials?  But my personal experience didn't matter.  All that mattered was the liberal narrative.  Communism is good, Cuba is a great example of it, and that was that.  Yet again, my ethnicity, my heritage, and my family background didn't matter even when it was relevant.

I'm writing about my personal experience to highlight the ludicrous nature of the recent obsession with ‘inclusion’.  I have never been ‘included’ or ‘seen’ as a Cuban in my whole life.  As a young adult, I came to the conclusion the only way I’d ever be around other Cubans like me with similar experiences would be to go to a Cuban neighborhood in Miami (which I still have yet to do). 

When you are part of a minority group sometimes it can feel lonely or even alienating.  This is true ANYTIME you find yourself in the minority.  A Black person in an all White school may understandably feel this way.  So would a White person in an all Black school.  An American in China likely will feel like an outcast.  So will a Chinese person in America.  My point is it's impossible to represent all minority communities!  We cannot wave a flag for every single minority group.  And this is where the progressive community is wrong in their concept of inclusion.

Before we discuss where progressives are going wrong, let's first define inclusion.  According to Merriam-Webster, the simple definition of inclusion is “the act of including: the state of being included.”  This is a perfectly reasonable definition, but woke ideology is a top-down push from the rich and powerful. So Merriam-Webster must also include a woke definition of inclusion as well: “the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded (as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability)”.  

So here we see what ‘inclusion’ really means to progressives. It's not about including all people equally.  It's not about including people like me, Chinese Americans, ethnic White people, religious minorities, immigrants, the poor, conservatives, or anyone who's not a progressive.  It's about including only progressive approved groups. 

Chinese or Cuban dissidents are not supposed to be included, even though they’d fit the definition of historically excluded.  But men, a group not historically excluded, are supposed to be included in the category of women, who are a group historically excluded.  You see how progressive logic works? Progressives claim to be ‘inclusive’ but then change the definition of inclusive to include only those they deem worthy.  It's not about all people being included, it's just about some.  

Progressives frequently state their ideology is about ‘diversity, inclusion, and kindness’.  ‘Empathy’ and ‘equity’ are other favorite terms as well.  But how, when, and where do they demonstrate any of these traits?  There are countless examples of progressives excluding people for reasons including religion, and politics, to they simply didn't like what someone was saying.  And that doesn't include the daily occurrences of exclusion on college campuses. In a recent case, a judge had to order a CA college to stop censoring students for distributing anti-communist literature on campus. And they see nothing wrong with this.  

If a Black woman objects to the presence of a naked White man in a women’s locker room with children present, she is the one who needs to be excluded (yes, this is a real story).  And this is progressive inclusion.  Progressive diversity looks similar: 80% of Harvard faculty identifies as liberal.  Only 1% identify as conservative and only 1/4 think that should be remedied by hiring more conservatives.  And unsurprisingly college faculty all over the US are over 75% White.  So much for diversity. 

Equity is one of the newest progressive buzzwords and they use it constantly.  Equality is one of the foundational concepts of America.  We should all have the same chance to succeed.  And for the most part, we all do.  That's what's great about our country.  But keeping in line with progressive nonsense, equity should now replace equality. 

Equity is the idea that everyone has the same outcome rather than the same opportunity.  So apparently we all have to become rich or poor or something else it's not quite clear what the same outcome for all means.  Only 6% of the US identifies as progressive.  This 6% is overwhelmingly White, college-educated, and upper-income.  However we define ‘equal outcome’, I’d love to hear progressives defend how 6% of the US seemingly ruling over the rest of the 94% is equitable in any way.

Empathy used to be a noble concept we all would strive for.  Trying to understand how other people feel and where they are coming from used to be one of the best traits of liberal-minded people.  But this too has been redefined to suit the radical progressive agenda.  Empathy now refers to acquiescing to progressives.  

Allowing a man to expose his penis to unconsenting and uncomfortable women and girls in a locker room (eg legalized sexual harassment) is how progressives define empathy.  Using emotional blackmail by telling parents if they don't let their young daughter cut her breasts off or she’ll kill herself is now empathy.  Forcing people to take a new experimental vaccine that may have serious side effects and is proven not to stop the spread of a deadly disease is now empathy. 

What empathy is not, is caring for others regardless of who and what they are.  Empathy is no longer about trying to see things from another perspective.  It's now about forcing people to view things only from one perspective, the progressive perspective.

Now back to my original premise.  It's not possible for all minority groups to be represented everywhere but if all are included, if all are welcome they wouldn't have to be.  It's also not possible to be included in any group we want.  Men cannot be included in the category of women, nor can White people be included in the category of Black people.  But when we’re all represented as equal human beings it won't matter.  

It didn't really matter if there were no Cubans near me growing up.  I knew who and what I was and I was proud of it.  I didn't need to be surrounded by Cuban flags or served plantains for school lunch (to the disgust of everyone else) to be ‘seen’.  There is no need for progressives to focus on inclusion for only one group (you know who we’re talking about).  They can advocate for inclusion for all, which in turn includes all groups.

Inclusion shouldn't be focused on one group because there are so many groups that have been historically excluded.  Groups that are in much larger numbers than 5% of the population or less.

So I appeal to progressives, you may be well-intentioned but if your good intentions lead us straight to hell, what exactly makes you different from the devil himself?  If your inclusion doesn't include all, if your diversity doesn't include thought, and if your kindness is doled out only to those you deem worthy-you are not the savior you think you are.  

Please right this ship now, before it's too late for us all!