How We Learned To Love Diversity And Ignore Inequality

Appiah, writer of Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers and Michaels, writer of The Trouble with Identity: How We Learned to Love Diversity and Ignore Inequality both had different personal views, opinions and arguments when it came to the topic of diversity. Michaels argues how we are more focus in race and cultures and avoiding the real problem, economic inequality. Meanwhile Appiah acknowledge diversity in a more positive way and explains that the best way to approach diversity is by Cosmopolitan because, we will get to learn from our differences and embrace them. Appiah and Michaels both had arguments that went against with what the other one had said, making this discussion and analysis more interesting since the reader had both sides of the argument. …show more content…
We prefer talking about race and our diversity than have a conversation about social class and help those who are rich and poor. He mentions how we have learned to pay attention to the diversity we have when it come to race, which Michael later goes to say that race is scientifically invalid. There is no biological difference between people of different races, but we as a society are “treating them as if they were races—different but worthy of of our respect”(pg. 49). We want for everyone to acknowledge that we are treating people of different races with respect to show that we are no longer the racism society we had before. Michaels talks about how our identity is dependent on race mostly and how we have involve cultures in race to make it more clear that we aren’t talking about the color of our skin, but of culture; thus, making everyone nor