Beyond Multiculturalism: Toward a New Paradigm of Diversity

[speed]

Oh Darth Kur the white people guilt thing was a remark to the original post of how multiculturalism started--out of White guilt. This multicultaralism crap is a token jesture to minorities and other groups--lets face it. Perhaps I assumed he was making a diatribe against jews for multiculturalism--I should reread it.

Anyway, in response to Nicks comments (and I think they are well reasoned and viable), you are a muslim right? Of course you would think we should all be one; that is the point of your religion correct? Becoming one with God? Thus, you have proven my point, because I dont think western culture (well at least protestantism, and most western thought after the age of reason etc) has this oneness as its principal goal anymore. But rather a individual notion of God that does not seek your rather platonic middle eastern oneness. Couldnt resist the anus lingo here.

I do believe cultures influence each other, and can live side by side; what I dont believe is that cultures can be lumped into one big culture. This is contrary to human experience. As for capitalism being the great cultural leveler, I ask does capitalism mirror its western form in any non-western country? No. And is it just me, or are the peoples of every other culture beginning to resist its subtle charms?

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Nick: The idea that current society promotes requires doublethought (think Orwell) to seem possible, in that it requires us to accept two contradictory ideas - the preservation of various cultures and the people's respect of all cultures. One can't respect values in opposition to their own as well as preserving their own, they either adapt to an all-tolerating value system or they don't tolerate other cultures. The former leads to there being one single, new, dominant culture lacking in any sort of identity (inherently stagnant in that it ultimately doesn't allow for the preference of anything strong over anything weak), while the latter obviously defeats the idea that intolerance of other cultures is 'wrong', or indeed that different cultures can be mixed in consonance.

Doublethought only comes into play when there are two conflicting ideas at hand.

Tell me how maintaining cultural identity and cultural coexistence cannot occur simultaneously. Have you ever been to New York City?

I'm not saying it's perfect. It will never be perfect. But it can be better. And some degree of harmony is possible. Tell me how an Italian culture threatens a Zulu culture. Tell me how those cultures cannot coexist without intolerance.

The former leads to there being one single, new, dominant culture lacking in any sort of identity (inherently stagnant in that it ultimately doesn't allow for the preference of anything strong over anything weak)

Subcultures will always exist. Although the presence of strong and weak must occur for evoultion and forward motion, cultures are not defined by the words "strong" and "weak."

LOL YES LET'S LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER. HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED WITH PAINT? NOTICE IF YOU MIX ALL THE COLOURS TOGETHER THEY BECOME ONE COLOUR.

Hey, dipshit, maybe you should realize that people aren't paint. If a comparison must be made, consider crayons. A box of crayons contains many colors. No one buys a box of only red or only blue.

Yet within the crayon box, each crayon is individually defined. Red and blue will not mix. The only way to see the overall effect is to dump a thousand crayons in a bucket and look at it from a distance. Many colors, not one. But together.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Anyway, in response to Nicks comments (and I think they are well reasoned and viable), you are a muslim right? Of course you would think we should all be one; that is the point of your religion correct? Becoming one with God? Thus, you have proven my point, because I dont think western culture (well at least protestantism, and most western thought after the age of reason etc) has this oneness as its principal goal anymore. But rather a individual notion of God that does not seek your rather platonic middle eastern oneness. Couldnt resist the anus lingo here.

That honestly could have a lot to do with it, but I don't feel like becoming a target or shifting the topic to religion.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

Italian culture and Zulu culture aren't an issue though, because they're not in contact in any meaningful way.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Oh yes, presenting reasoned, articulate ideas is much more cluttersome than posting barely literate complaints and accusations.

barely literate? come again? and let me just say: one can be reasoned and articulate without sounded longwinded. he who speaks most effectively conveys the same ideas and reasons in less words. i'm not saying i know more than you, but i definitely think you could take half the fluff out of what you've written.

i'm going to avoid everything you post from this moment forward, have a nice life. you have been one of the more laughable characters on UM for certain.

 

[speed]

Well I dont think culture and religion are any different; a culture creates a religion in its own likeness. There is a reason monotheistic religion was only created in the Middle East, why Toaism and buddhism was created in the East, why Protestanism was created in Germany, etc--all had much to do with culture. Hell, have you noticed the stark differances of Catholicism between the Italians and say Gautemalans--two different religions with a few shared beliefs.

As one can ascertain, I believe culture is perhaps the single most influential human entity or creation.

Silent Song, just accept they make these long wind statements to outwardly show they are intellectually superior. Its a trick used by any cultural or intellectual elitist. Common short sentences are used by capitalists bankers etc--by uncultured individuals. No self respecting writer who thought anything of himself would resort to speaking plainly.

But yes, they do embellish things to the point of absurdity. I personally think they read too much German philosophy.

 

[Cythraul]

i'm going to avoid everything you post from this moment forward, have a nice life. you have been one of the more laughable characters on UM for certain.

You never posted a rebuttal to any of his arguments. You've merely wasted your time attacking his character. If you can argue against the ideas presented in his initial post with less 'fluff' and pretension then by all means, go ahead and do that. As it stands, you've done little more than whine. He wins, you lose.

 

[milkman]

There wouldn't have been slavery in America if black slave traders wouldn't have traded them to the whites

 

[speed]

Ive often thought the problem with America and race is that African Americans have a rather primitive culture--its not a question of their race or genetics etc. As much as I hate my own American culture, it is developed; whereas African American culture is quite primitive and undeveloped. And since African Americans have resisted cultural change, and we dont seek to change our culture to accomodate them other than these pathetic token attempts at a multiculturalism in name only, I dont see how the two cultures will ever come to a true understanding; only a continuation of this inane political correctness and behind close doors contempt for each other of today.

Just a thought, I know it may be unpopular.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

I disagree. African American culture is not primitive.

The understanding will come with time. Look at how far we've come in fifty years.

 

[the alumnus]

there are some fairly good assessments in your essay Planetary Eulogy, but i would like to make a casual observation or two (without taking the time to read any of the replies). the devalution of cultures to one amalgamous cultural goo ready for mass consumption is essentially what american culture is about. a quick example is the rise of new age pagans in america. you certainly don't find them in countries that still have ties to the real cultures that the new agers exploit (ireland, norway, first national reserves). so essentially there is no solution, because both sides are essentially the same coin of americanism, for better or for worse.

 

[etotheipiequalsminus1]

Hey, dipshit, maybe you should realize that people aren't paint. If a comparison must be made, consider crayons. A box of crayons contains many colors. No one buys a box of only red or only blue.

Yet within the crayon box, each crayon is individually defined. Red and blue will not mix. The only way to see the overall effect is to dump a thousand crayons in a bucket and look at it from a distance. Many colors, not one. But together.

Crayons don't breed.

Lumping cultures together is called conformity. Example : An Indian friend of mine was forced to change his original Indian name to a Western name "Ricky". That is conformity due to forced assimilation into a foreign culture.

 

[Episteme]

o_0, that's a really stupid thing to ask for if an immigrant was asked to change his name.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Tell me how maintaining cultural identity and cultural coexistence cannot occur simultaneously.

------

Yet within the crayon box, each crayon is individually defined. Red and blue will not mix. The only way to see the overall effect is to dump a thousand crayons in a bucket and look at it from a distance. Many colors, not one. But together.

The crayon analogy suggests that "identity" is solely down to how one appears from an external perspective. I don't feel that inanimate objects can be used as comparison here.

Do you really consider it possible for a person to, let's say, believe that life should be sacred without exception, and also respect that life isn't important and that we're all insignificant means to an end? An expected counter-argument to this would be that you don't have to "agree" with something to "respect" it, but that's simply false. To respect something involves accepting that something has value, which is agreement.

To accept the idea that life isn't sacred, one can't possibly believe that life is sacred. A person can either continue believing that life is sacred and have no respect for an idea which opposes this, or, they can do what's happened to many in Western society and sit on the fence, never quite sure of themselves because they're so heavily conditioned to respect both ideas.

It isn't possible for people with different ideals/beliefs/values/etc to accept one another completely, they aren't congruent, the only way they can do so is by reaching a compromise. This is the equivalent of forming one single culture which takes certain attributes of one, certain attributes of the other, and then gets rid of all the conflicting ideas by trying to take both out of the mix, or - probably more common - by putting both together in such a way that one can be fooled into believing they can work together. This is doublethought, and it results in us losing many things that were at one time a part of us, it certainly isn't the "preservation" that multiculturalism supposedly encourages.

I'm not saying it's perfect. It will never be perfect. But it can be better. And some degree of harmony is possible.

Sure, a degree of harmony is possible, not all ideas are going to be contradictory. But at the end of the day, why settle for a less than satisfactory amount of harmony when so much more is possible without multiculturalism? So one can cling to the hugely flawed idea that all humans are equal and should be treated as such? Not on my watch.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Lumping cultures together is called conformity. Example : An Indian friend of mine was forced to change his original Indian name to a Western name "Ricky". That is conformity due to forced assimilation into a foreign culture.

I'm sorry that happened. That really is not what I intend. I don't mean conformity.

Do you really consider it possible for a person to, let's say, believe that life should be sacred without exception, and also respect that life isn't important and that we're all insignificant means to an end? An expected counter-argument to this would be that you don't have to "agree" with something to "respect" it, but that's simply false. To respect something involves accepting that something has value, which is agreement.

I do not agree with your definitions of respect and agreement, but I respect that you have them.

It isn't possible for people with different ideals/beliefs/values/etc to accept one another completely, they aren't congruent, the only way they can do so is by reaching a compromise. This is the equivalent of forming one single culture which takes certain attributes of one, certain attributes of the other, and then gets rid of all the conflicting ideas by trying to take both out of the mix, or - probably more common - by putting both together in such a way that one can be fooled into believing they can work together. This is doublethought, and it results in us losing many things that were at one time a part of us, it certainly isn't the "preservation" that multiculturalism supposedly encourages.

Complete acceptance is not a requirement. The world does not work on the all-or-nothing philosophy. Compromise is the best policy. It allows the ability to accept some tenets of polar philosophy/beliefs/values, and disagree with others.

As a Muslim, I beleive that my faith is correct. The absolute. My way is law. My thought is right. My God is real. All else is wrong.

Yet, I could not bear to live in a world where everyone thought the same way. I respect other people's beliefs, even if they are contradictory to my own. I only get ornery when I get their beliefs shoved down my throat, because I do not do the same in response. Religion, IMO, is private. Again, probably because I am a Muslim. Worship is personal, regardless of mass prayer. While I'm praying, the room actually feels empty of other people. Their denomination or differing values, etc, are irrelevant. Why should I care what they feel or what their values are? Those are for them to know and for me to never find out.

This compromise, however, does not equate to forming one single culture. Culture is far deeper than that. There are aspects to it. Culture is private, public, common, individual, collective, separate, all at once. One cannot lose one's culture. One can simply take their knowledge of that culture and add it to a common pot. They still have it, but they also indulge in the culture of the collective.

Multiculturalism in the sense that I'm talking about is not the fallacious term everyone is placing in quotes. I'm talking about a global society, where differences are celebrated due to individuality, but not important enough to breed intolerance. The intolerance comes from the notions of superiority between peoples, which is what multiculturalism seeks to eliminate. The superiority complex.

Sure, a degree of harmony is possible, not all ideas are going to be contradictory. But at the end of the day, why settle for a less than satisfactory amount of harmony when so much more is possible without multiculturalism? So one can cling to the hugely flawed idea that all humans are equal and should be treated as such? Not on my watch.

Well, you're free to try and prevent it. Just know that I'm on the opposite end, disagreeing all the way. This doesn't mean I don't respect you or your belief.

The world can be a communal place ,and equality in the sense that I'm talking about can be achieved. Anyone is free to disagree with this and deny its possibility, calling it idealistic or unrealistic. However, I, as usual, choose to go with faith.

 

[Episteme]

Great post Nick. I too disagree with GoD's definitions of respect and agreement. I reckon there can be respect without assimilation. People just have to show abit of tolerance of cultures, they don't have to follow anything. I have many friends from different backgrounds from all over the world, I don't necessarily agree with their beliefs and ideals but I respect their decision to follow them. After all, each of us individually have our own personal attitudes and values(not just based on culture). It's only when we forcefully try to convert people that conflict starts.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

It's only when we forcefully try to convert people that conflict starts.

Yes.

 

[etotheipiequalsminus1]

racism and superiourity complexes only exist in multicultural societies

 

[Mormagil]

Like imperial China.