I mean to say I don't think I disagreed with/rubutted the overall point, just the part about it being unprecedented. The actual location of the immigrants (rural or urban) doesn't make any difference. Everything is more urban now, but that doesn't change the nature of migration or multiculturalism.Enki wrote:Ibrahim wrote:I don't believe that I did.Enki wrote:I don't know why you phrased agreement with me as a rebuttal.
All I said is that more people live in the cities by proportion than live rurally than at any time in history. You agreed with that.
Identity
Re: Identity
Re: Identity
Historically most large empires (e.g pre-Christian Roman, Persian, Chinese) made no effort to assimilate culture. On the one hand the haughtily assumed that the people with smarts would want to assimilate into the culture of the ruling class, and second they had no mechanism for or conception of enforcing cultural conformity. The exchange of cultural behaviors occurred naturally without specific policies, and religions were unmolested unless provoked by uprisings (Romans vs. Jews and Druids, famously).noddy wrote:as a muttly who generally believes in "multiculture"... a single "culture" can embrace lots of "sub culture" or it can be highly totalitarian and only accept "the one true culture"...
as such, this kind of conversation is pretty much crippled with context dependant specifics.
how much did "big civilisations" come together as a whole only after the central ruling culture gave "enough" power back to the sub cultures to make them happy with the system versus how much did the central ruling culture just butcher the difference out of the system.
The emphasis was on the imperial rule and law being universal, not culture. I suspect that the idea of enforcing cultural assimilation is a product of the industrial revolution and particularly mass communication. Now we have the means to propagandize and indoctrinate large numbers of people, and get a little offended and weirded out when people don't like to join our particular cultural party. Ancient Romans and Achaemenids were much more secure about their culture, and the Han knew they could just out-breed everybody.
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: Identity
"Another country or something that goes on in another country in my country"? This makes little sense to me semantically. How can another country "go on" inside of another country? You mean like a parallel parliament, a parallel military, a parallel court system? Or, do you simply mean an enclave, like Lesotho, which is "going on" inside of South Africa, in a certain sense?Mr. Perfect wrote: I can only say that if it looks like they (government/schools, or msm) are trying to promote another country or something that goes on in another country in my country I generally object to it.
Empires, too, are 'multicultural', right? Hard to argue that it didn't benefit them, by the way...
But you can't possibly believe that government and broader society don't have that right. Wasn't civil rights an attempt to change peoples' MO as they were going about their discriminatory, bullying business?Or if the government or public entities try to change my MO when I'm going about my business
So now we have to abolish all holidays? A lot of Americans don't agree with Christmas. Or the Pledge of Allegiance. We are culturally American but dislike these things and yet the government keeps celebrating them.or uses my tax dollars to celebrate things I don't agree with, I don't like it.
I don't know. In my view, multiculturalism would be a government policy of supporting and promoting institutions and customs that are not only different than the norm (or outright illegal), but which outright refuse to acknowledge or participate in mainstream society.Is that multiculti? I don't know. I just don't like it.
For example, I think that government-funded Spanish-only schools would probably violate that principle. Mandating bilingual education, however, would not. Providing reasonable accommodation to other cultural groups, with the objective being to forge a syncretic cultural identity, by recognizing additional official languages (as is done in Singapore), would also be okay.
Regarding the original article, implementing policies that promote heterogeneity sounds like a recipe for controversy but I think the idea has merit. Would anyone here argue against a policy that actively seeks to attract immigrants? What is that if not a pro-heterogeneity policy? There are plenty of good reasons for European member states to become heterogeneous. Many of Europe's cultures (see Eastern Europe in particular) are stagnant and stifled, and could use an aggressive immigration policy and anti-racism education program, if only to stimulate more internal competition and forge better trade relationships with immigrants' ancestral homelands.I also don't like what is proposed by the dude in the original post here. That seems crazy to me, certifiable insanity. I would commit that guy.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Identity
The operative word was "promote".Zack Morris wrote:"Another country or something that goes on in another country in my country"? This makes little sense to me semantically. How can another country "go on" inside of another country? You mean like a parallel parliament, a parallel military, a parallel court system? Or, do you simply mean an enclave, like Lesotho, which is "going on" inside of South Africa, in a certain sense?Mr. Perfect wrote: I can only say that if it looks like they (government/schools, or msm) are trying to promote another country or something that goes on in another country in my country I generally object to it.
Empires went multicultural and then tended to collapse, FWIW.Empires, too, are 'multicultural', right? Hard to argue that it didn't benefit them, by the way...
I can possibly believe it, and do.
But you can't possibly believe that government and broader society don't have that right.
Not really, I don't think all laws fall under the multicultural debate. Further, if I wanted to be racist in many ways the gov't still can't stop me.Wasn't civil rights an attempt to change peoples' MO as they were going about their discriminatory, bullying business?
Right, and you are free to debate them and you do, and I do the same things. Often though one side wins and the other loses and that's the way it goes.So now we have to abolish all holidays? A lot of Americans don't agree with Christmas. Or the Pledge of Allegiance. We are culturally American but dislike these things and yet the government keeps celebrating them.
Agreed.I don't know. In my view, multiculturalism would be a government policy of supporting and promoting institutions and customs that are not only different than the norm (or outright illegal), but which outright refuse to acknowledge or participate in mainstream society.
For example, I think that government-funded Spanish-only schools would probably violate that principle.
Disagree. Mandating language from the top down is a really good example of multiculti I would object to. If the community demanded it fine, but for the morons in a faraway capital to deem it mandatory, they can go pound.Mandating bilingual education, however, would not.
I disagree here. I do not recognize some distant bureaucrat's right or ability to forge syncretic identities. Throughout history those form without any centralized power having a hand in it, I encourage that model going forward. Some DHS secretary decreeing what I am to do about culture issues, that is offensive to me and IMV an abuse of gov't power.Providing reasonable accommodation to other cultural groups, with the objective being to forge a syncretic cultural identity, by recognizing additional official languages (as is done in Singapore), would also be okay.
Being pro immigration is different than essentially mandating a quota system. I want to attract people who love freedom and want to become Americans. people who are politically congruent with me, want to learn the language and teach their families American history and tradition ahead of their own. My family came here as far as we can tell late in the 1800's, and I know hundred times more about the history of the US than any place my relatives came from, and I like that.Regarding the original article, implementing policies that promote heterogeneity sounds like a recipe for controversy but I think the idea has merit. Would anyone here argue against a policy that actively seeks to attract immigrants? What is that if not a pro-heterogeneity policy? There are plenty of good reasons for European member states to become heterogeneous. Many of Europe's cultures (see Eastern Europe in particular) are stagnant and stifled, and could use an aggressive immigration policy and anti-racism education program, if only to stimulate more internal competition and forge better trade relationships with immigrants' ancestral homelands.
Censorship isn't necessary