Immigration?

[Έρεβος]

And of course, heavy restriction of peoples desire to move abroad is seen as an infringment on their human rights.

Human rights? Human rights are probably the most idiotic invention of the modern era.

You essentially asked why a traditional, single culture society cannot exist. I basically replied, because people will choose to move to a society they perceive as more 'comfortable' if they have the means and the money.

In todays world the means, (high speed and affordable travel/ available jobs and housing) and the money are often available; the opportunity is there, and people will take it.

Cannot exist? Surely it can't exist as things are set up currently, but that certainly doesn't mean it can't exist.

People should not wish to move from their nation of origin, from their home and heritage. In the past there was great importance in heritage & pride in ones nation. That pride is a vital aspect of any culture or society, without it our modern society is progressively destroying itself. Truly, which is of more importance, "comfort," or that which made you who you are? When we forsake our heritage and leave it behind for "comfort" we discard all the wisdom and understanding that humanity has built up through the ages, and passed down in our "heritage." We remove the foundation that the modern should be built on.

It isn't a matter of blunt out making immigration & emigration illegal or impossible, but rather bringing back the souls of our peoples, the pride in what made us who we are and that which has developed through the ages to work in harmony with our nature and allow us to be and continuing being a great species. Once we've brought back our soul as a people there will be no desire to forsake heritage, nation, & family for "comfort," because people shall see what is of real meaning and it will again be sacred to them.

In the mean time, as our race is currently nothing but a hedonistic petty materialistic collection of imbeciles, we truly need changes in system that will allow us to slowly bring us back to a meaningful state. That includes heavy restriction on immigration in order to retain the small bit of diverse culture we have remaining, and other such regulations that don't allow a mono-culture to take over. And the immigration allowed should never be about simply an individual having "the means and money." It should be about what that individual is willing to give up to become part of a new culture, if they are of any worth allowing into the nation, and if their reasons are truly meaningful (not just this "comfort" you speak of).

The opportunity should not be there so readily. High-speed international travel should be heavily restricted & regulated, and in actuality seldom used, especially for immigration. This is not a violation of some vague concept of "human rights," as human rights are imaginary.

Why would you want to move to a place when you know nothing at all about it? Nothing about the possible benefits that could be offered by moving there

The only time anyone should be permitted to "move" to a place is when they know all that a native to that place needs to know, when they've learned the culture, history, geography, and modern make-up to the detail, and are fluent in it's language. Immigration should be permitted only with assimilation. Though, I don't see your point here. What you said is a neutral statement not pertaining to being against or for "multiculturalism."

Besides - available travel and being aware of the benefits of moving to another country were not my justifications for immigration - just reasons why people choose to immigrate and do so.

Available travel is a moronic reason, and simply being "aware of the benefits of moving to another country" is not nearly enough, especially not to forsake ones own homeland & heritage. People should not be permitted to immigrate for such reasons.

I don't believe that multi-cultural societies should be difficult to maintain - so long as immigration is voluntary - all that makes them difficult to maintain is people like you who can't see that societies need to evolve and adapt rather than clinging so rigidly to traditional (and often outdated and impractical) values.

Not difficult, impossible. Any multicultural society will dissolve into a mono-culture with time, and a mono-culture is truly nothing but the complete and utter lack of culture and meaning in society (A.K.A. the United States). Such a type of diversity is impossible for humanity to maintain, and ends up destroying diversity entirely.

Immigration voluntary? What does that have to do with anything? Take a damn look at many European nations with huge voluntary migrations of Muslims. The population of many nations is being tipped, as the Arab Muslims don't seem to understand how moronic it is to have 30 children. They invade the governments, schools, workplaces, and all of society, bringing with them foreign values and culture. Of course as to not infringe on the oh-so-rational "human rights" the Europeans must of course accept these Muslims, but not just accept but rather change themselves in order to allow the Muslims to "fit in" more easily. The cultures become mixed with time, and eventually we've got some bandaged together Euro-arab culture with nothing meaningful, interesting, or even remotely constructive & beneficial. Both cultures are destroyed in the mixing, coming out with some quasi-culture that has about as much substance & meaning as a 2 year old has knowledge of advanced calculus.

Societies need to evolve and adapt, surely! Only a utter fool would preach doing exactly what humans did 6000 years ago, but this has nothing to do with multicultural globalism, or actually it does, just in a somewhat opposite manner as you were speaking of it. When we forsake and toss out developed heritage and tradition, we are starting from block one in an area of knowledge no human or coalition of humans can just fabricate and hope to work. When cultures are mixed, the vital & working aspect of all the original cultures is automatically thrown out. The very meaningful purpose of a culture is destroyed with their mixing. A culture is meant to be a complex system/way of life that develops around a people, through gradual development of complex systems that work greatest with the people they develop around and for. It is both a product of the developed genetic traits of a people, and a [vital] determining factor in the advancement & improvement of a people's traits. When two or more cultures are mixed this vital aspect is confused (as it trys to adapt cultures of different peoples to fit each other, which is by the very nature of culture impossible), and loses all value.

Traditional values are not static, and only become outdated & impractical when certain circumstances destroy a societies ability to evolve and adapt those traditional values. Though, such traditions/traditional values are not quickly outdated or made impractical, only in a suicidal liberal society are values so quickly labeled as archaic and impractical (when in reality they are still very vital). It takes many years for substantial changes in such values to be needed, and changes shouldn't be "decisions by a single generation," they should be gradual shifts throughout time. Devotion to traditional values is not devotion to some static archaic system that was used thousands of years ago, it is belief in the working system of progressive values as has been developed through thousands of years of experience & cultural development.

 

[Cythraul]

Human rights? Human rights are probably the most idiotic invention of the modern era.

Really? Why?

 

[Έρεβος]

Really? Why?

There is no objective logic behind the concept of inherent "rights" unique to a species. They are a product of egoism and plain ignorance, placing all importance in the individual while entirely forsaking the whole. The whole is harmed at the expense of complying to these fake rights we make up for ourselves. It is an utterly self-centered individualistic concept, revolving around the moronic concept that that individual "comfort" is more important than the whole.

The very way they function is downright retarded - what is considered a "right" changes from generation to generation, even though at any time in history the current "rights" are considered inherent and absolute. That is a dead obvious crossing of the boundary between subjective and objective, an evident logical fallacy. It is an aspect of the suicidal system of democracy, with each added "right" and compliance to the rights already in place we further neglect and harm the needs of the whole while making the individual superficially "comfortable," while in reality only making the individual truly worse off as it cheapens value and meaning. (Plus, the individual is first an foremost part of the whole, hence neglect/destruction of the whole also harms the individual, every individual.)

It is an idiotic system that is logically self defeating. It preaches "making it better for the individual" while in reality only making it far worse for every single individual, and preventing the objectively logical actions which are needed for society to survive from being taken.

We consider things like "heavy restriction of peoples desire to move abroad" and "restriction on number of children per family" to be infringements of human rights, while both of them are absolutely necessary and positive things that are objectively logically needed in our modern world. The concept of human rights is about as sturdy as a pile of Jello, it is ever shifting to conform with the moronic masses who have lost all sense of value and meaning in life but base hedonism, or this pursuit of "comfort."


I think a better question would be "what is it NOT?"

 

[Blowtus]

People should not wish to move from their nation of origin, from their home and heritage. In the past there was great importance in heritage & pride in ones nation. That pride is a vital aspect of any culture or society, without it our modern society is progressively destroying itself. Truly, which is of more importance, "comfort," or that which made you who you are? When we forsake our heritage and leave it behind for "comfort" we discard all the wisdom and understanding that humanity has built up through the ages, and passed down in our "heritage." We remove the foundation that the modern should be built on.

It isn't a matter of blunt out making immigration & emigration illegal or impossible, but rather bringing back the souls of our peoples, the pride in what made us who we are and that which has developed through the ages to work in harmony with our nature and allow us to be and continuing being a great species. Once we've brought back our soul as a people there will be no desire to forsake heritage, nation, & family for "comfort," because people shall see what is of real meaning and it will again be sacred to them.

What use does pride serve? A more stable culture, more aggressive to any who would question or modify it? What leads you to believe that 'forsaking heritage' is the discarding of wisdom and understanding?

You argue for the continuation of 'traditional cultures' - those cultures have led to where we are now. Might not we need to develop a new method of providing a sense of community, soul, values, etc, for people to latch on to? You think halting immigration at this point will have substantial positive effect on the world?

 

[Έρεβος]

1) What use does pride serve? 2) A more stable culture, more aggressive to any who would question or modify it? 3) What leads you to believe that 'forsaking heritage' is the discarding of wisdom and understanding?

4) You argue for the continuation of 'traditional cultures' - those cultures have led to where we are now. 5) Might not we need to develop a new method of providing a sense of community, soul, values, etc, for people to latch on to? 6) You think halting immigration at this point will have substantial positive effect on the world?

1) The use I stated. You basically just asked the question I answered with that paragraph. A bit backwards.

2) Um, not really. Where did you get that? It just stops ignorantly liberal changes. Quick changes are never a good thing, and only create instability and degeneration, ending up worse than before. Cultures are continually modified and changed, not exactly by the will of individuals, but rather the evolution of the whole. Let's compare this to evolution on the level of an organism, a human. I don't think the rest of the human body would appreciate it to much if the heart all of a sudden decided to beat 10x as fast, do you? I don't think the neck would appreciate it too much if the skull decided to get twice as thick to better protect the brain, do you? A culture that allows such liberal systems to reign is prone to such, rather than evolution of the whole you get idiotic changes with lack of perspective. Individual rapid changes as define a liberal culture can never have perspective, as individual humans don't have the capability of grasping the full and nearly infinitely complex mechanism of nature that culture correctly progresses by.

3) Did you even read what I wrote?

4) Wrong! Moronic rejection of those cultures led to where we are now.

5) Why would we? Why "fix" something that is not broken? Because replacing a system developed over thousands of years of cultural evolution with ideas of one generation created from scratch certainly isn't going to make an improvement. This rejection of a vital wisdom developed through history is a bit ignorant of reality. Thinking that our one generation can make something better than hundreds of generations of development is just a bit naive.

6) That is easy, yes, I know it will. How wouldn't it?

 

[Tabubua]

I'm proud of being English. I love my country (but not necessarily the people in it). Doesn't mean I'm wouldn't immigrate out of it - in order to experience what another culture can offer me.

In todays world we need to live as a global community. We need to act as a global community to support trade and commerce etc. We need to understand each other in order to live on this same very small ball of earth.

If we section the world up into states that revert and develop on 'traditional values' we will end up with a world full of states unable to understand or agree with each other. Trade would fall to pieces as each nations stagnant pride and inability to bridge cultural gaps destroys their relationships with one another. War would occur as the gaps between ideologies widen and become unreconsilable.

Mingling cultures means we gather a wider understanding of our world, the people in it and ultimately ourselves. Being in contact with people who have different ways of looking at things makes us question and improve our own veiws on the world. People don't like it when confronted with other ideas that could mean they are wrong, mingling in the way we do today is better than all out war when one nationalist state decides another is treatening the fundamental beliefs that are the foundation of their society.

I'll come argue more after work...

 

[OldScratch]

I'm proud of being English. I love my country (but not necessarily the people in it). Doesn't mean I'm wouldn't immigrate out of it - in order to experience what another culture can offer me.

In todays world we need to live as a global community. We need to act as a global community to support trade and commerce etc. We need to understand each other in order to live on this same very small ball of earth.

If we section the world up into states that revert and develop on 'traditional values' we will end up with a world full of states unable to understand or agree with each other. Trade would fall to pieces as each nations stagnant pride and inability to bridge cultural gaps destroys their relationships with one another. War would occur as the gaps between ideologies widen and become unreconsilable.

Mingling cultures means we gather a wider understanding of our world, the people in it and ultimately ourselves. Being in contact with people who have different ways of looking at things makes us question and improve our own veiws on the world. People don't like it when confronted with other ideas that could mean they are wrong, mingling in the way we do today is better than all out war when one nationalist state decides another is treatening the fundamental beliefs that are the foundation of their society.

I'll come argue more after work...

With all due respect this is just so much feel-good Globalist clap-trap from start to finish. "We need to live as a global community?" "We need to understand each other..." According to what or whom?
You seem to be confusing(either intentionally or not) international trade and commerce with multiculturalism. Must a society be filled with members of every concievable ethno-cultural admixture on earth to remail finacially viable? I am quite confident that America's fiscal health(such as it may be) is hardly dependent upon a large influx of Guatemalan immigrants! Also doubtful is the necessity of having large numbers of Pakistanis flood into England, as a means to ensure future financial security! Tell me, what grand and critical "wider understanding" do the people of North America gain from Somali refugees exactly? Hmong mountain people? Bantu tribesman?
What utter rubbish! The very idea that the west would somehow collapse, either financially or culturally without mass-immigration from the perpetually "developing' world is so obviously false, that it defies reason to suggest it.

If you personally feel the need to have a household of Senegalese move in next-door to you, in order to have a better "understanding" of yourself, then be my guest.
I will nobly forfeit this glorious cultural intercourse, in favor of the quaint and simple western ways and "traditional values" of my forefathers. I would bravely take my chances with the homogeneous State, versus the multicultural, nation-less "global-community" you envision! Global-community indeed...does this not stand the very definition of community on its head?

 

[Blowtus]

1) The use I stated. You basically just asked the question I answered with that paragraph. A bit backwards.

All I saw were some sweeping statements with no obvious interconnectedness...

2) Um, not really. Where did you get that? It just stops ignorantly liberal changes. Quick changes are never a good thing, and only create instability and degeneration, ending up worse than before. Cultures are continually modified and changed, not exactly by the will of individuals, but rather the evolution of the whole. Let's compare this to evolution on the level of an organism, a human. I don't think the rest of the human body would appreciate it to much if the heart all of a sudden decided to beat 10x as fast, do you? I don't think the neck would appreciate it too much if the skull decided to get twice as thick to better protect the brain, do you? A culture that allows such liberal systems to reign is prone to such, rather than evolution of the whole you get idiotic changes with lack of perspective. Individual rapid changes as define a liberal culture can never have perspective, as individual humans don't have the capability of grasping the full and nearly infinitely complex mechanism of nature that culture correctly progresses by.

You think cultures developed in an entirely different environment can remain static and useful? The pace of technological change and urbanisation in the west has been dramatic. Clinging to old ways of life, when confronted with greatly different circumstances, doesn't necessarily seem the answer to me.

3) Did you even read what I wrote?

4) Wrong! Moronic rejection of those cultures led to where we are now.

Everywhere in the west has 'moronically rejected' their culture?
I would suggest that our culture of seeking comfort and power through science has led to us having little to no reliance on other individuals (simply large scale human machines) and that it was the previous, necessary reliance on individuals / the community that helped (forced?) us to remain 'decent' human beings. Perhaps immigrants and differing cultures add to the effect of disconnectedness, but I think the culture as it was, was heading in this direction all along.

5) Why would we? Why "fix" something that is not broken? Because replacing a system developed over thousands of years of cultural evolution with ideas of one generation created from scratch certainly isn't going to make an improvement. This rejection of a vital wisdom developed through history is a bit ignorant of reality. Thinking that our one generation can make something better than hundreds of generations of development is just a bit naive.

6) That is easy, yes, I know it will. How wouldn't it?

Our previous culture/s led to our predicament today. Whether by encouraging a supposed 'rejection' of the culture, being unable to cope with immigration, urbanisation, modern technology, or whatever - there is nothing but the past to blame for the present. Why would we simply clamor to go back a step, and not look forward to change that can cope with the adversities faced?

 

[Blowtus]

I found the following a pretty interesting read. Some of the French philsopher, Emile Durkheim's, ideas on the differences between 'traditional' and 'modern' society.
Durkheim - The Work - Individual &Society

 

[schivmeister]

America wasn't founded and built by Mexicans, middle easterners, Africans or Asians.

America had a cohesive German culture, but threw it away in the name of individual freedom. Everything since has been downhill. Immigration is not helping, therefore is a terrible idea.

Hmm but the first people in the Americas (including North, South, and Central) mostly came from Siberia and Asia So it depends who you want to call the founders; the natives or the Spaniards (Don Colombo and friends).

I'm part German and I see no cultural similarities when I put an American and German side by side, except for the traditional food like Hamburgers, baked potatoes and sausages. Pronunciations differ greatly, especially hamburger So it seems the cohesive German culture has really been lost some time ago, but luckily the food survived!

 

[EerieVon]

I'm part German and I see no cultural similarities when I put an American and German side by side, except for the traditional food like Hamburgers, baked potatoes and sausages. Pronunciations differ greatly, especially hamburger So it seems the cohesive German culture has really been lost some time ago, but luckily the food survived!

No cultural similarities?

Germans have contributed to a vast number of areas in American culture and technology. Baron von Steuben, a former Prussian officer, led the reorganization of the U.S. Army during the War for Independence and helped make the victory against British troops possible. The Steinway & Sons piano manufacturing firm was founded by immigrant Heinrich Engelhard Steinweg in 1853. German settlers brought the Christmas tree custom to the United States. The Studebakers built large numbers of wagons used during the Western migration; Studebaker later became an important early automobile manufacturer. Carl Schurz, a refugee from the unsuccessful first German democratic revolution of 1848 (see also German Confederation), served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

Due to the developments in Germany leading from World War I and World War II, many researchers of German (particularly German-Jewish) origin left Germany due to economic problems or as a result of racial, religious, and political persecution. Probably the most famous of them was Albert Einstein, known for his Theory of Relativity.

After World War II, Wernher von Braun, and most of the leading engineers from the former German rocket base Peenemünde, were brought to the U.S. They contributed to the development of U.S. military rockets, as well as of rockets for the NASA space program.

The influence of German cuisine is seen in the cuisine of the United States throughout the country, especially regarding pastries, meats and sausages, and above all, beer. Frankfurters (aka Wieners, originating from Vienna), hamburgers, bratwurst, sauerkraut, strudel are common dishes. Germans almost totally dominated the beer industry since 1850. German bakers introduced the pretzel. The revival of microbreweries is partly due to instruction from German beer masters. One of the areas in which the influence of German cuisine is strongest is the small town Midwest. Among larger cities Cincinnati, Ohio is known for its German American annual festival Zinzinnati, among the largest German American festivals in the U.S. Oktoberfest celebrations are held throughout the country.

.




Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hibernal_dream]

With all due respect this is just so much feel-good Globalist clap-trap from start to finish. "We need to live as a global community?" "We need to understand each other..." According to what or whom?
You seem to be confusing(either intentionally or not) international trade and commerce with multiculturalism. Must a society be filled with members of every concievable ethno-cultural admixture on earth to remail finacially viable? I am quite confident that America's fiscal health(such as it may be) is hardly dependent upon a large influx of Guatemalan immigrants! Also doubtful is the necessity of having large numbers of Pakistanis flood into England, as a means to ensure future financial security! Tell me, what grand and critical "wider understanding" do the people of North America gain from Somali refugees exactly? Hmong mountain people? Bantu tribesman?
What utter rubbish! The very idea that the west would somehow collapse, either financially or culturally without mass-immigration from the perpetually "developing' world is so obviously false, that it defies reason to suggest it.

If you personally feel the need to have a household of Senegalese move in next-door to you, in order to have a better "understanding" of yourself, then be my guest.
I will nobly forfeit this glorious cultural intercourse, in favor of the quaint and simple western ways and "traditional values" of my forefathers. I would bravely take my chances with the homogeneous State, versus the multicultural, nation-less "global-community" you envision! Global-community indeed...does this not stand the very definition of community on its head?

Our policies must be determined, at a very basic level, by our long-term goals. It may not "feel good" to live next to a Senegalese family but it does not make sense to impose artificial limits on the freedom of a family to live where they want to simply because someone else feels bad. What we need to focus on is the reason you feel bad - is it possible our living conditions and social policies, as determined by centuries of territorial, competitive and sovereign consciousness (both economic and geographical), do not allow for the kinds of relationships with people other races which should be inherent and flow naturally from our status as a single species?

Separate yourself from a such a perspective and you realise how absurd monoculturalism will seem in time. What purpose will it serve in 200 years time when technological advances will render geographical domicile virtually meaningless? We are already well on the way, thanks to the internet. What about in 1,000 years? 10,000? When we are colonizing beyond our solar system (a potential seriously burdened by monoculturalism) how will the lifeforms we encounter view our method of living in hundreds of separated subgroups for the sake of "traditional values"?

 

[Blowtus]

monocultures - subgroups separated by culture, (though not necessarily genetics) make reasonable sense to me. Community's work best when they can work together for the same goals, as you have mentioned.

 

[hibernal_dream]

There is no objective logic behind the concept of inherent "rights" unique to a species. They are a product of egoism and plain ignorance, placing all importance in the individual while entirely forsaking the whole. The whole is harmed at the expense of complying to these fake rights we make up for ourselves. It is an utterly self-centered individualistic concept, revolving around the moronic concept that that individual "comfort" is more important than the whole.

The very way they function is downright retarded - what is considered a "right" changes from generation to generation, even though at any time in history the current "rights" are considered inherent and absolute. That is a dead obvious crossing of the boundary between subjective and objective, an evident logical fallacy. It is an aspect of the suicidal system of democracy, with each added "right" and compliance to the rights already in place we further neglect and harm the needs of the whole while making the individual superficially "comfortable," while in reality only making the individual truly worse off as it cheapens value and meaning. (Plus, the individual is first an foremost part of the whole, hence neglect/destruction of the whole also harms the individual, every individual.)

It is an idiotic system that is logically self defeating. It preaches "making it better for the individual" while in reality only making it far worse for every single individual, and preventing the objectively logical actions which are needed for society to survive from being taken.

We consider things like "heavy restriction of peoples desire to move abroad" and "restriction on number of children per family" to be infringements of human rights, while both of them are absolutely necessary and positive things that are objectively logically needed in our modern world. The concept of human rights is about as sturdy as a pile of Jello, it is ever shifting to conform with the moronic masses who have lost all sense of value and meaning in life but base hedonism, or this pursuit of "comfort."


I think a better question would be "what is it NOT?"

Your whole post is just made up of statements with absolutely nothing - no theory or philosophy - to back them up. Exactly how do human rights serve individual needs and fail to serve communal ones? Rights aren't naturally inherent - no-one said they were. They're either laid down in accordance with what a society values as a limit on personal freedoms, or constitutionally (which means they cannot vary from generation to generation as you said they could). When a society integrates a right into its body of laws it is saying "this is what we as a community value, what we want protected, and anyone who contravenes them is acting against the community". They embody the consciousness of the community.

You've provided no evidence whatsoever that rights "serve the comforts of the individual". Take the right to a fair trial - when someone enforces their right the value of justice is vindicated. No-one's comfort is at issue.

 

[schivmeister]

EerieVon: Ahh yes..but does the average american even portray such a German-influenced culture?

 

[Justin S.]

Talk of "mono" or "multi" culturalism is blind to what "culture" is.

Culture is no mere enactment of tradition or custom, nor something willed. One is acculturated in culture, not in possession of culture or cultures as if they are artifacts one can shop for.

Culture is, crudely and broadly, the all encompassing relationality of ones being-in-the-world. On corrupt.org, I saw one speak of "bio-regionalism" which is an apt concept (it captures many important features).

Culture is indeed "regional", but not in the sense of arbitrary demarcations of human fancy, but the factors of "bio-regions" which exert similar pressures and experiences upon a population.

Let's look at a common custom to reveal the difference between culture and the contrived technicity of "tradition" (which is oblivious to context and thereby ontological significance): the Tannenbaum.

It is well known that the "Christmas Tree" is one of many pagan practices appropriated by Christianity. Here, I am not concerned with the reasons and motivations behind such a political/religious appropriation, but how an activity moves from contextual/relational significance ("actual" culture) to that enframed, hollow mimicry we mistakenly call "culture".

The "evergreen" is called so in reference to its climate. Only amongst the turn of seasons, the contrast of snowfall and dormant flora and fauna with the bursting of buds and offspring of warmer months does "evergreen" make sense. It is that which is ever-green amongst the blanket of grey and white- what reminds men of that land of fertility and vivid color in the dark and short days of winter. In this context (bio-regionalism), its symbolic and spiritual significance is grounded.

Now, one finds "Christmas trees" everywhere. How ludicrous to see the ever-green featured in the windows of homes in the American southwest! Not only does evergreen not grow in the arid regions, but its "ever-greenness" is no longer significant, its relation to the seasons, geography, and most importantly, its people is totally lost (its culture). It is merely a prop one sets-up because "that is what you do"- what the "they" does in the technicity of "culture". What was once significant is rendered as an arbitrary commodity.

The same goes for "cuisine": A people ate this and that fish, harvested certain strains of grain, hunted boar and deer because that is what flourished in their world, not because of mere "tradition". Now, we harvest, in a grotesque manner, millions of head of pig, millions of hectares of wheat in mechanized plants because "traditionally" our "culture" eats such "things"- there is no concern for the context of people, their land and resources, but only some alienated notion of the supreme importance and "worth" of repetitive activity oblivious to ontological significance.

Culture intrinsically implies "diversity", in the sense of true difference. It displays difference because it is contextual existence. "Mono-culturalism" mistakes shared "tradition" and artifacts for "culture", is oblivious to context and significance (under its ontic gaze, the Tannenbaum of a farmer in Baden is the same as the plastic fabrication in the beach side homes of L.A.) . "Multi-culturalism" (which is not used as a way to describe the existence of multiple cultures [totally superfluous] but some sort of "co-existence" of different cultures which harmonize with one another in a fruitful union) mistakes culture as something fixed, the product of human creation which possesses self-contained meaning, which can be ripped from its context and modified and adjusted at whim. How mistaken this view is.

There are cultures on the planet, but one is in culture, not cultures. Actual culture cannot be exported nor summed, as its ground is its context, its world of meaning and significance. Multiculturalism is a mere mish-mashing of socially associated artifacts which have long been stripped from culture. Multiculturalism is not a culture of rich synthesis, but the annihilation of meaning, context, and diversity itself; the fulfillment of technical, ontical metaphysics.

 

[OldScratch]

^ It should be noted that in reality "Multiculturalism" is used as a euphamism for a pluralistic or multi-racial/multi-ethnic society and often has little if anything to do with legitimate culture one way or the other. Just the same - an interesting post!

 

[Tabubua]

Justin S - that is a brilliant little essay of the nature of 'culture' you studying sociology by any chance?

When I think of culture, the first thing I think of are the styles of Art and Literature produced by a certain group of related people - related by location, religion etc. These things reflect the way a certain group of people sees the world, and how they have evolved in relation to their enviromental surroundings and historical background.

This doesn't mean that when people move they don't take aspects of their culture with them - they're not instantly going to change the way they think because they have moved out of their original cultural setting. Of course, their ideas should adapt with time as they absorb the culture of their new social group.

I believe that a society formed of people from different cultural back grounds should be able to merge and evolve into a mono-cultural society over time. Historically its happened many times, though it involves a lot of give and take from both sides.

People moving into a foreign society must accept that they will have to give up some of their old traditions in order to work efficently as a member of that society. They should learn the language and have a good understanding of the traditions and culture of the area they are moving to. They should respect that if there are things they do not agree with, they chose to move to an area where that is the prevailant culture/ tradition and they cannot expect their new neighbours to change to accomodate them.

On the other hand we have to respect that incoming immigrants have cultures and traditions of their own, and they have a right to try to continue them - as long as their actions are not detrimental to society (for example, I can hardly agree with the African witch doctors that left the limbless torso of a young boy in the Thames).

Oldscratch - I think you completely missed the point of my post. In no way am I confusing commerce with multiculturalism.

 

[OldScratch]

Oldscratch - I think you completely missed the point of my post. In no way am I confusing commerce with multiculturalism.

Perhaps it is best we just agree to disagree then as we are evidently on completely different planets with regard to this issue anyway.

 

[Tabubua]

Perhaps it is best we just agree to disagree then as we are evidently on completely different planets with regard to this issue anyway.

Well you are in America