"Diversity" has become one of the most often used words of our time-- and a word almost never defined.  Diversity is invoked in discussions of everything from employment policy to curriculum reform and from entertainment to politics.  Nor is the word merely a description of the long-known fact that the American population is made up of people from many countries, many races, and many cultural backgrounds.  All that was well known long before the word "diversity" became an insistent part of our vocabulary, an invocation, an imperative, or a bludgeon in ideological conflicts.
    The very motto of the country-- E Pluribus Unum-- recognizes the diversity of the American people.  For generations, this diversity has been celebrated, whether in comedies like Abie's Irish Rose (the famous play featuring a Jewish boy and an Irish girl) or in patriotic speeches on the Fourth of July.  Yet one senses something very different in today's crusades for "diversity"-- certainly not a patriotic celebration of America and often a sweeping criticism of the United States, or even a condemnation of Western civilization as a whole.
    At the very least, we need to separate the issue of the general importance of cultural diversity-- not only in the United States but in the world at large-- from the more specific, more parochial, and more ideological agendas which have become associated with that word in recent years.  I would like to talk about the worldwide importance of cultural diversity over centuries of human history before returning to the narrower issues of our time.
    The entire history of the human race, the rise of man from the caves, has been marked by transfers of cultural advances from one group to another and from one civilization to another.  Paper and printing, for example, are today vital parts of Western civilization-- but they originated in China centuries before they made their way to Europe.  So did the magnetic compass, which made possible the great ages of exploration that put the Western Hemisphere in touch with the rest of mankind.  Mathematical concepts likewise migrated from one culture to another: trigonometry from ancient Egypt, and the whole numbering system now used throughout the world originated among the Hindus of India, though Europeans called this system Arabic numerals because it was the Arabs who were the intermediaries through which these numbers reached medieval Europe.  Indeed, much of the philosophy of ancient Greece first reached Western Europe in Arabic translations, which were then retranslated into Latin or into the vernacular languages of the West Europeans.
    Much that became part of the culture of Western civilization originated outside that civilization, often in the Middle East or Asia.  The game of chess came from India, gunpowder from China, and various mathematical concepts from the Islamic world, for example.  The conquest of Spain by Moslems in the eighth century A.D. made Spain a center for the diffusion into Western Europe of the more advanced knowledge of the Mediterranean world and of the Orient in astronomy, medicine, optics, and geometry.  The later rise of Western Europe to world preeminence in science and technology built upon these foundations, and then the science and technology of European civilization began to spread around the world, not only to European offshoot societies such as the United States or Australia but also to non-European cultures, of which Japan is perhaps the most striking example.
    The historic sharing of cultural advances, until they became the common inheritance of the human race, implied much more than cultural diversity.  It implied that some cultural features were not only different from others but better than others.  The very fact that people-- all people, whether Europeans, Africans, Asians, or others-- have repeatedly chosen to abandon some feature of their own culture in order to replace it with something from another culture implies that the replacement served their purposes more effectively: Arabic numerals are not simply different from Roman numerals, they are better than Roman numerals.  This is shown by their replacing Roman numerals in many countries whose own cultures derived from Rome, as well as in other countries whose respective numbering systems were likewise superseded by so-called Arabic numerals.
    It is virtually inconceivable today that the distances in astronomy or the complexities of higher mathematics should be expressed in Roman numerals.  Merely to express the year of American independence-- MDCCLXXVI-- requires more than twice as many Roman numerals as Arabic numerals.  Moreover, Roman numerals offer more opportunities for errors, as the same digit may be either added or subtracted, depending on its place in the sequence.  Roman numerals are good for numbering Kings or Super Bowls, but they cannot match the efficiency of Arabic numerals in most mathematical operations-- and that is, after all, why we have numbers at all.  Cultural features do not exist merely as badges of "identity" to which we have some emotional attachment.  They exist to meet the necessities and forward the purposes of human life.  When they are surpassed by features of other cultures, they tend to fall by the wayside or to survive only as marginal curiosities, like Roman numerals today.
    Not only concepts, information, products, and technologies transfer from one culture to another.  The natural produce of the Earth does the same.  Malaysia is the world's leading grower of rubber trees-- but those trees are indigenous to Brazil.  Most of the rice grown in Africa today originated in Asia, and its tobacco originated in the Western Hemisphere.  Even a great wheat-exporting nation like Argentina once imported wheat, which was not an indigenous crop to that country.  Cultural diversity, viewed internationally and historically, is not a static picture of differentness but a dynamic picture of competition in which what serves human purposes more effectively survives while what does not tends to decline or disappear.
    Manuscript scrolls once preserved the precious records, knowledge, and thought of European or Middle Eastern cultures.  But once paper and printing from China became known in these cultures, books were clearly far faster and cheaper to produce and drove scrolls virtually into extinction.  Books were not simply different from scrolls; they were better than scrolls.  The point that some cultural features are better than others must be insisted on today because so many among the intelligentsia either evade or deny this plain reality.  The intelligentsia often use words like "perceptions" and "values" as they argue in effect that it is all a matter of how you choose to look at it.
    They may have a point in such things as music, art, and literature from different cultures, but there are many human purposes common to peoples of all cultures.  They want to live rather than die, for example.  When Europeans first ventured into the arid interior of Australia, they often died of thirst or hunger in a land where the Australian aborigines had no trouble finding food or water.  Within that particular setting, at least, the aboriginal culture enabled people to do what both aborigines and Europeans wanted to do-- survive.  A given culture may not be superior for all things in all settings, much less remain superior over time, but particular cultural features may nevertheless be clearly better for some purposes-- not just different.
    Why is there any such argument in the first place?  Perhaps it is because we are still living in the long, grim shadow of the Nazi Holocaust and are understandably reluctant to label anything or anyone "superior" or "inferior."  But we don't need to.  We need only recognize that particular products, skills, technologies, agricultural crops, or intellectual concepts accomplish particular purposes better than their alternatives.  It is not necessary to rank one whole culture over another in all things, much less to claim that they remain in that same ranking throughout history.  They do not.
    Clearly, cultural leadership in various fields has changed hands many times.  China was far in advance of any country in Europe in a large number of fields for at least a thousand years and, as late as the sixteenth century, had the highest standard of living in the world.  Equally clearly, China today is one of the poorer nations of the world and is having great difficulty trying to catch up to the technological level of Japan and the West, with no real hope of regaining its former world preeminence in the foreseeable future.
    Similar rises and falls of nations and empires have been common over long stretches of human history-- for example, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the "golden age" of medieval Spain and its decline to the level of one of the poorest nations in Europe today, the centuries-long triumphs of the Ottoman Empire-- intellectually as well as on the battlefields of Europe and the Middle East-- and then its long decline to become known as "the sick man of Europe."  Yet, while cultural leadership has changed hands many times, that leadership has been real at given times, and much of what was achieved in the process has contributed enormously to our well-being and opportunities today.  Cultural competition is not a zero-sum game.  It is what advances the human race.
    If nations and civilizations differ in their effectiveness in different fields of endeavor, so do social groups.  Here there is especially strong resistance to accepting the reality of different levels and kinds of skills, interests, habits, and orientations among different groups of people.  One academic writer, for example, said that nineteenth-century Jewish immigrants to the United States were fortunate to arrive just as the garment industry in New York began to develop.  I could not help thinking that Hank Aaron was similarly fortunate-- that he often came to bat just as a home run was due to be hit.  It might be possible to believe that these Jewish immigrants just happened to be in the right place at the right time if you restricted yourself to their history in the United States.  But, again taking a world view, we find Jews prominent, often predominant, and usually prospering, in the apparel industry in medieval Spain, in the Ottoman Empire, in the Russian Empire, in Argentina, in Australia, and in Brazil.  How surprised should we be to find them predominant in the same industry in America?
    Other groups have also excelled in their own special occupations and industries.  Indeed, virtually every group excels at something.  Germans, for example, have been prominent as pioneers in the piano industry.  American piano brands like Steinway and Schnabel, not to mention the Wurlitzer organ, are signs of the long prominence of Germans in this industry, where they produced the first pianos in colonial America.  Germans also pioneered in piano-building in Czarist Russia, Australia, France, and England.  Chinese immigrants have, at one period of history or another, run more than half the grocery stores in Kingston, Jamaica, and Panama City and conducted more than half of all retail trade in Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Cambodia.  Other groups have dominated retail trade in other parts of the world-- the Gujaratis from India in East Africa and in Fiji or the Lebanese in parts of West Africa, for example.
    Nothing has been more common than for particular groups-- often a minority-- to dominate particular occupations or industries.  Seldom do they have any ability to keep out others-- and certainly not to keep out the majority population.  They are simply better at the particular skills required in that occupation or industry.  Sometimes we can see why.  When Italians have made wine in Italy for centuries, it is hardly surprising that they should become prominent among wine-makers in Argentina or in California's Napa Valley.  Similarly, when Germans in Germany have been for centuries renowned for their beer-making, how surprised should we be that in Argentina they became as prominent among beer-makers as the Italians were among wine-makers?  How surprised should we be that beer-making in the United States arose where there were concentrations of German immigrants-- in Milwaukee and St. Louis, for example?  Or that the leading beer producers to this day have German names like Anheuser-Busch or Coors, among many other German names?
    Just as cultural leadership in a particular field is not permanent for nations or civilizations, neither is it permanent for given racial, ethnic, or religious groups.  By the time the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, Europe had overtaken the Islamic world in medical science, so that Jewish physicians who sought refuge in the Ottoman Empire found themselves in great demand in that Moslem country.  By the early sixteenth century, the sultan of the Ottoman Empire had on his palace medical staff 42 Jewish physicians and 21 Moslem physicians.  With the passage of time, however, the source of the Jews' advantage-- their knowledge of Western medicine-- eroded as successive generations of Ottoman Jews lost contact with the West and its further progress.  Christian minorities within the Ottoman Empire began to replace the Jews, not only in medicine but also in international trade and even in the theater, once dominated by Jews.  The difference was that these Christian minorities-- notably Greeks and Armenians-- maintained their ties in Christian Europe and often sent their sons there to be educated.  It was not race or ethnicity as such that was crucial but maintaining contacts with the ongoing progress of Western civilization.  By contrast, the Ottoman Jews became a declining people in a declining empire.  Many, if not most, were Sephardic Jews from Spain-- once the elite of world Jewry.  But by the time the state of Israel was formed in the twentieth century, those Sephardic Jews who had settled for centuries in the Islamic world now lagged painfully behind the Ashkenazic Jews of the Western world-- notably in income and education.  To get some idea what a historic reversal that has been in the relative positions of Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazic Jews, one need only note that Sephardic Jews in colonial America sometimes disinherited their children for marrying Ashkenazic Jews.
    Why do some groups, subgroups, nations, or whole civilizations excel in some particular fields rather than others?  All too often, the answer to that question must be: Nobody really knows.  It is an unanswered question largely because it is an unasked question.  There is an uphill struggle merely to get acceptance of the fact that large differences exist among peoples, not just in specific skills in the narrow sense (computer science, basketball, or brewing beer) but more fundamentally in different interests, orientations, and values that determine which particular skills they seek to develop and with what degree of success.  Merely to suggest that these internal cultural factors play a significant role in various economic, educational, or social outcomes is to invite charges of "blaming the victim."  It is much more widely acceptable to blame surrounding social conditions or institutional policies.
    But if we look at cultural diversity internationally and historically, there is a more basic question whether blame is the real issue.  Surely, no human being should be blamed for the way his culture evolved for centuries before he was born.  Blame has nothing to do with it.  Another explanation that has had varying amounts of acceptance at different times and places is the biological or genetic theory of differences among peoples.  I have argued against this theory in many places but will not take the time to go into these lengthy arguments here.  A world view of cultural differences over the centuries undermines the genetic theory as well.  Europeans and Chinese, for example, are clearly genetically different.  Equally clearly, China was a more advanced civilization than Europe in many scientific, technological, and organizational ways for at least a thousand years.  Yet over the past few centuries, Europe has moved ahead of China in many of these same ways.  If those cultural differences were due to genes, how could these two races have changed positions so radically from one epoch in history to another?
    All explanations of differences between groups can be broken down into heredity and environment.  Yet a world view of the history of cultural diversity seems, on the surface at least, to deny both.  One reason for this is that we have thought of environment too narrowly-- as the immediate surrounding circumstances or differing institutional policies toward different groups.  Environment in that narrow sense may explain some group differences, but the histories of many groups completely contradict that particular version of environment as an explanation.  Let us take just two examples out of many which are available.
    Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe and Italian immigrants from southern Italy began arriving in the United States in large numbers at about the same time in the late nineteenth century, and their large-scale immigration also ended at the same time, when restrictive immigration laws were passed in the 1920s.  The two groups arrived here in virtually the same economic condition-- namely, destitute.  They often lived in the same neighborhoods, and their children attended the same schools, sitting side by side in the same classrooms.  Their environments-- in the narrow sense in which the term is commonly used-- were virtually identical.  Yet their social histories in the United States have been very different.
    Over the generations, both groups rose, but they rose at different rates, through different means, and in a very different mixture of occupations and industries.  Even wealthy Jews and wealthy Italians tended to become rich in different sectors of the economy.  The California wine industry, for example, is full of Italian names like Mondavi, Gallo, and Rossi, but the only prominent Jewish wine-maker-- Manischewitz-- makes an entirely different kind of wine, and no one would compare Jewish wine-makers with Italian wine-makers in the United States.  When we look at Jews and Italians in the very different environmental setting of Argentina, we see the same general pattern of differences between them.  The same is true if we look at the differences between Jews and Italians in Australia, or Canada, or Western Europe.
    Jews are not Italians and Italians are not Jews.  Anyone familiar with their very different histories over many centuries should not be surprised.  Their fate in America was not determined solely by their surrounding social conditions in America or by how they were treated by American society.  They were different before they got on the boats to cross the ocean, and those differences crossed the ocean with them.
    We can take it a step further.  Even among Ashkenazic Jews, those originating in Eastern Europe have had significantly different economic and social histories from those originating in Germanic Central Europe, including Austria as well as Germany itself.  These differences have persisted among their descendants not only in New York and Chicago but as far away as Melbourne and Sydney.  In Australia, Jews from Eastern Europe have tended to cluster in and around Melbourne, while Germanic Jews have settled in and around Sydney.  They even have a saying among themselves that Melbourne is a cold city with warm Jews while Sydney is a warm city with cold Jews.
    A second and very different example of persistent cultural differences involves immigrants from Japan.  As everyone knows, many Japanese-Americans were interned during World War II.  What is less well known is that there is and has been an even larger Japanese population in Brazil than in the United States.  These Japanese, incidentally, own approximately three-quarters as much land in Brazil than in Japan.)  In any event, very few Japanese in Brazil were interned during World War II.  Moreover, the Japanese in Brazil were never subjected to the discrimination suffered by Japanese Americans in the decades before World War II.
    Yet, during the war, Japanese-Americans, overwhelmingly, remained loyal to the United States and Japanese-American soldiers won more than their share of medals in combat.  But in Brazil, the Japanese were overwhelmingly and even fanatically loyal to Japan.  You cannot explain the difference by anything in the environment of the United States or the environment of Brazil.  But if you know something about the history of those Japanese who settled in these two countries, you know that they were culturally different in Japan, before they ever got on the boats to take them across the Pacific Ocean-- and they were still different decades later.
    These two groups of immigrants left Japan during very different periods in the cultural evolution of Japan itself.  A modern Japanese scholar has said: "If you want to see Japan of the Meiji era, go to the United States.  If you want to see Japan of the Taisho era, go to Brazil."  The Meiji era was a more cosmopolitan, pro-American era; the Taisho era was one of fanatical Japanese nationalism.
    If the narrow concept of environment fails to explain many profound differences between groups and subgroups, it likewise fails to explain many very large differences in the economic and social performances of nations and civilizations.  An eighteenth-century writer in Chile described that country's many natural advantages in climate, soil, and natural resources-- and then asked in complete bewilderment why it was such a poverty-stricken country.  That same question could be asked of many countries today.  Conversely, we could ask why Japan and Switzerland are so prosperous when they are both almost totally lacking in natural resources.  Both are rich in what economists call "human capital"-- the skills of their people.  No doubt there is a long and complicated history behind the different skill levels of different peoples and nations.  The point here is that the immediate environment-- whether social or geographic-- is only part of the story.
    Geography may well have a significant role in the history of peoples, but perhaps not simply by presenting them with more or less natural resources.  Geography shapes or limits peoples' opportunities for cultural interactions and the mutual development that comes out of that.  Small, isolated islands in the sea have seldom been sources of new scientific advances or technological breakthroughs-- regardless of where such islands were located and regardless of the race of the people on these islands.  There are islands on land as well.  Where soil fertile enough to support human life exists only in isolated patches, widely separated, there tend to be isolated cultures (often with different languages or dialects) in a culturally fragmented region.  Isolated highlands often produce insular cultures, lagging in many ways behind the cultures of the lowlanders of the same race-- whether we are talking about medieval Scotland, colonial Ceylon, or the contemporary Montagnards of Vietnam.
    With geographical environments as with social environments, we are talking about long-run effects not simply the effects of immediate surroundings.  When Scottish highlanders, for example, immigrated to North Carolina in colonial times, they had a very different history from that of Scottish lowlanders who settled in North Carolina.  For one thing, the lowlanders spoke English while the highlanders spoke Gaelic-- on into the nineteenth century.  Obviously, speaking only Gaelic-- in an English-speaking country-- affects a group's whole economic and social progress.
    Geographical conditions vary as radically in terms of how well they facilitate or impede large-scale cultural interactions as they do in their distribution of natural resources.  We are not even close to being able to explain how all these geographical influences have operated throughout history.  That too is an unanswered question largely because it is an unasked question-- and it is an unasked question because many are seeking answers in terms of immediate social environment or are vehemently insistent that they have already found the answer in those terms.
    How radically do geographic environments differ-- not just in terms of tropical versus arctic climates but also in the very configuration of the land and how that helps or hinders large-scale interactions among peoples?  Consider one statistic: Africa is more than twice the size of Europe, and yet Africa has a shorter coastline than Europe.  That seems almost impossible.  But the reason is that Europe's coastline is far more convoluted, with many harbors and inlets being formed all around the continent.  Much of the coastline of Africa is smooth-- which is to say, lacking in the harbors which make large-scale maritime trade possible by sheltering the ships at anchor from the rough waters of the open sea.  Waterways of all sorts have played a major role in the evolution of cultures and nations around the world.  Harbors on the sea are not the only waterways.  Rivers are also very important.  Virtually every major city on Earth is located either on a river or a harbor.  Whether it is such great harbors as those in Sydney, Singapore, or San Francisco; or London on the Thames, Paris on the Seine, or numerous other European cities on the Danube, waterways have been the lifeblood of urban centers for centuries.  Only very recently has manmade, self-powered transportation like automobiles and airplanes made it possible to produce an exception to the rule like Los Angeles.  (There is a Los Angeles River, but you don't have to be Moses to walk across it in the summertime.)  New York has both a long and deep river and a huge sheltered harbor.
    None of these geographical features in themselves create a great city or develop an urban culture.  Human beings do that.  But geography sets the limits within which people can operate-- and in some places it sets those limits much wider than others.  Returning to our comparison of the continents of Europe and Africa, we find that they differ as radically in rivers as they do in harbors.  There are entire nations in Africa without a single navigable river-- Libya and South Africa, for example.  "Navigable" is the crucial word.  Some African rivers are navigable only during the rainy season.  Some are navigable only between numerous cataracts and waterfalls.  Even the Zaire River, which is longer than any river in North America and carries a larger volume of water, has too many waterfalls, too close to the ocean for it to become a major artery of international commerce.  Such commerce is facilitated in Europe not only by numerous navigable rivers but also by the fact that no spot on the continent, outside of Russia, is more than 500 miles from the sea.  Many places in Africa are more than 500 miles from the sea, including the entire nation of Uganda.
    Against this background, how surprised should we be to find that Europe is the most urbanized of all inhabited continents and Africa the least urbanized?  Urbanization is not the be-all and end-all of life, but certainly an urban culture is bound to differ substantially from non-urban cultures, and the skills peculiar to an urban culture are far more likely to be found among groups from an urban civilization.  (Conversely, an interesting history could be written about the failures of urbanized groups in agricultural settlements.)
    Looking within Africa, the influence of geography seems equally clear.  The most famous ancient civilization on the continent arose within a few miles on either side of Africa's longest navigable river, the Nile, and even today the two largest cities on the continent, Cairo and Alexandria, are on that river.  The great West African kingdoms in the region served by the Niger River and the long-flourishing East African economy based around the great natural harbor on the island of Zanzibar are further evidences of the role of geography.  Again, geography is not all-determining-- the economy of Zanzibar has been ruined by government policy in recent decades-- but nevertheless, geography is an important long-run influence on the shaping of cultures as well as in narrowly economic terms.
    What are the implications of a world view of cultural diversity on the narrower issues being debated under that label in the United States today?  Although "diversity" is used in so many different ways in so many different contexts that it seems to mean all things to all people, there are a few themes which appear again and again.  One of these broad themes is that diversity implies organized efforts at the preservation of cultural differences, perhaps governmental efforts, perhaps government subsidies to various programs run by the advocates of "diversity."
    This approach raises questions as to what the purpose of culture is.  If what is important about cultures is that they are emotionally symbolic, and if differentness is cherished for the sake of differentness, then this particular version of cultural "diversity" might make some sense.  But cultures exist even in isolated societies where there are no other cultures around-- where there is no one else and nothing else from which to be different.  Cultures exist to serve the vital, practical requirements of human life-- to structure a society so as to perpetuate the species, to pass on the hard-earned knowledge and experience of generations past and centuries past to the young and inexperienced in order to spare the next generation the costly and dangerous process of learning everything all over again from scratch through trial and error-- including fatal errors.  Cultures exist so that people can know how to get food and put a roof over their head, how to cure the sick, how to cope with the death of loved ones, and how to get along with the living.  Cultures are not bumper stickers.  They are living, changing ways of doing all the things that have to be done in life.
    Every culture discards over time the things which no longer do the job or which don't do the job as well as things borrowed from other cultures.  Each individual does this, consciously or not, on a day-to-day basis.  Languages take words from other languages, so that Spanish as spoken in Spain includes words taken from Arabic, and Spanish as spoken in Argentina has Italian words taken from the large Italian immigrant population there.  People eat Kentucky Fried Chicken in Singapore and stay in Hilton Hotels in Cairo.
    This is not what some of the advocates of "diversity" have in mind.  They seem to want to preserve cultures in their purity, almost like butterflies preserved in amber.  Decisions about change, if any, seem to be regarded as collective decisions, political decisions.  But that is not how any cultures have arrived where they are.  Individuals have decided for themselves how much of the old they wished to retain, how much of the new they found useful in their own lives.  In this way, cultures have enriched each other in all the great civilizations of the world.  In this way, great port cities and other crossroads of cultures have become centers of progress all across the planet.  No culture has grown great in isolation-- but a number of cultures have made historic and even astonishing advances when their isolation was ended, usually by events beyond their control.
    Japan was a classic example in the nineteenth century, but a similar story could be told of Scotland in an earlier era, when a country where once even the nobility were illiterate became-- within a short time, as history is measured-- a country which produced world pioneers in field after field: David Hume in philosophy, Adam Smith in economics, Joseph Black in chemistry, Robert Adam in architecture, and James Watt, whose steam engine revolutionized modern industry and transport.  In the process, the Scots lost their language but gained world preeminence in many fields.  Then a whole society moved to higher standards of living than anyone ever dreamed of in their poverty-stricken past.
    There were higher standards in other ways as well.  As late as the eighteenth century, it was considered noteworthy that pedestrians in Edinburgh no longer had to be on the alert for sewage being thrown out the windows of people's homes or apartments.  The more considerate Scots yelled a warning, but they threw out the sewage anyway.  Perhaps it was worth losing a little of the indigenous culture to be rid of that problem.
    Those who use the term "cultural diversity" to promote a multiplicity of segregated ethnic enclaves are doing an enormous harm to the people in those enclaves.  However they live socially, the people in those enclaves are going to have to compete economically for a livelihood.  Even if they were not disadvantaged before, they will be very disadvantaged if their competitors from the general population are free to tap the knowledge, skills, and analytical techniques which Western civilization has drawn from all the other civilizations of the world, while those in the enclaves are restricted to what exists in the subculture immediately around them.
    We need also to recognize that many great thinkers of the past-- whether in medicine or philosophy, science or economics-- labored not simply to advance whatever particular group they happened to have come from but to advance the human race.  Their legacies, whether cures for deadly diseases or dramatic increases in crop yields to fight the scourge of hunger, belong to all people-- and all people need to claim that legacy, not seal themselves off in a dead-end of tribalism or in an emotional orgy of cultural vanity.