The folks in the ghettos

Let's get it: We are, what we were.  

To understand a community's culture in the present context, one also needs to get its' past, namely:

A) Ontological understanding - the way the culture came into being. 

B) Epistemological understanding - how the community in that culture learns. 

C) Anthropological understanding - how the community folks behave.  

Only the last is visible to outsiders.

In certain cultures, speaking as realistically as metaphorically, wherever the community members go in the world, they have a tendency to ghettoize. 

That is so, because the community is very identity centric. They strongly relate to people like themselves. So far, so good; nothing wrong with that. 

The problems occur in the subsequent steps. 

Knowing what exactly is the criteria for having a strong identity centricity, and why it takes precedence over all else, such that the community members need to permanently huddle together very closely, and emit non-welcoming signals to outsiders, would help. 

That can only be understood, if we get all the aspects of community's birth and growth. Namely, how that community came into being or the essence of its DNA, how it indoctrinates its young in the formative years and disseminates information & knowledge later. Finally, what & how it communicates and acts within and outside. 

Often, such identity centric folks can relate only with each other, believing that nobody understands them, and make little attempt to engage with the larger world outside their own, and so the community experiences perpetual insecurity or victimhood. As a consequence, they remain financially or ortherwise backward, incompatible to the larger society and the spirit of the times. 

With passage of time, that feeling of insecurity and the experience of the victimhood, no matter how large the group becomes, doesn't recede but gets exacerbated. 

These folks then seek comfort of their own, even when there's enough evidence that they have no need to feel insecure, and on the contrary, engaging outside their self-created narrow space could empower them on multi-dimensional levels.  

Because of the earliest indoctrination, and later education methodology, such folks will however be unwilling to assimilate and unwilling to move out of their ghetto. They can only transact within the community and are of little value to majority outside their community. 

Assimilation is defined as being rooted to your past while still being wedded to your future. 

It means that while you are proud of your identity, culture, and traditions, you are equally keen & willing to share the elements from there, and engage with others from varying backgrounds for mutual benefits to enrich the overall society. 

You pose no discomfort to the other, speaking feelingly. 

So, while others assimilate and move on, the identity centric communities remain stagnant and frozen in time. 

Unfortunately, those who are bothered by such communities indulge in a very surface level, and sanitized discussion, bypassing over the real issues mentioned above. 

That's half the problem. 

They however offer a moralist world view, a childish good-natured verdict, one without trail. It's an idealistic view,  one that's not derived any morals from the real world experiences unfolding before them, including global examples shouting out loud. 

They continue to quote the exception and so miss the root cause. 

As hyper moralists, they give verdicts to selves and others that they must see everyone equally and fairly. 

That's a Utopian fairytale, best suited in our personal imaginary realm, not the reality. 

To treat unequal people equally is itself unfair. 

So, the idea of diversity and inclusivity also is at best, an illusion.

We must enforce to offer equal opportunities, but not assume equal outcomes.  

Equal outcomes from different people is not possible. 

Two fruits on the same tree aren't equal, even when they were recipient of the same amount of sun, water, and minerals. 

We should pursue diversity, not automatic inclusivity. 

Based on the outcome that the diverse groups produce, we can decide whom to include. In fact it happens by the law of natural selection. 

By logic, we can include those that enrich us and our environment and not those that want to use our value based institutions to only secure their exclusivity and live happily thereafter in their ghettos to our detriment. 

Doing just that would be equally fair.