Identity

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Identity

Post by Ibrahim »

Enki wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Enki wrote:I don't know why you phrased agreement with me as a rebuttal.
I don't believe that I did.

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.
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.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Identity

Post by Ibrahim »

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.
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).

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.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Identity

Post by Zack Morris »

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.
"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?

Image

Empires, too, are 'multicultural', right? Hard to argue that it didn't benefit them, by the way...
Or if the government or public entities try to change my MO when I'm going about my business
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 uses my tax dollars to celebrate things I don't agree with, I don't like it.
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.
Is that multiculti? I don't know. I just 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.

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.
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.
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.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Identity

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote:
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.
"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?
The operative word was "promote".
Empires, too, are 'multicultural', right? Hard to argue that it didn't benefit them, by the way...
Empires went multicultural and then tended to collapse, FWIW.

But you can't possibly believe that government and broader society don't have that right.
I can possibly believe it, and do.
Wasn't civil rights an attempt to change peoples' MO as they were going about their discriminatory, bullying business?
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.

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.
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.
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.
Agreed.
Mandating bilingual education, however, would not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply