Multiculturalism
I suggest the whole 'hobby' line of thinking may be minimizing an important part of culture - one that may be largely invisible to aspies, who assume that 'interests' and 'hobbies' are the same.
Golf is a 'hobby' but golf is also an important aspect of many cultures (especially business subcultures) - people meet and interact on a golf course, making deals, deciding to promote some plans and people while blocking others. The social component cannot be ignored - it is critically important.
Likewise, some would minimize ordinary religious functions in the west to this hobby status. I read an essay once about how the real communion for most churches takes place at the coffee hour after the formal service - that is where people form a community. That is where bonds are created to support and advance members of the community. The fact that there is one over-arching community at the macro scale ('America') does not erase differences between communities at the micro-scale. And it certainly does not replace the functions that micro-communities serve. American culture will not visit me if I am in the hospital, they will not deliver tuna casseroles and offer to cut my lawn for a week or two if there is a crisis in my life. The local community does do that, if a person is an active part of it. Of course, if one belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church, one will get yummy moussaka and spinakopita and baklava instead of tuna casserole and lime jello.
Culture == a fluid mosaic of all the sociofacts, mentifacts and artifacts expressed and re-expressed in a group of people.
Golf is a 'hobby' but golf is also an important aspect of many cultures (especially business subcultures) - people meet and interact on a golf course, making deals, deciding to promote some plans and people while blocking others. The social component cannot be ignored - it is critically important.
Likewise, some would minimize ordinary religious functions in the west to this hobby status. I read an essay once about how the real communion for most churches takes place at the coffee hour after the formal service - that is where people form a community. That is where bonds are created to support and advance members of the community. The fact that there is one over-arching community at the macro scale ('America') does not erase differences between communities at the micro-scale. And it certainly does not replace the functions that micro-communities serve. American culture will not visit me if I am in the hospital, they will not deliver tuna casseroles and offer to cut my lawn for a week or two if there is a crisis in my life. The local community does do that, if a person is an active part of it. Of course, if one belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church, one will get yummy moussaka and spinakopita and baklava instead of tuna casserole and lime jello.
Culture == a fluid mosaic of all the sociofacts, mentifacts and artifacts expressed and re-expressed in a group of people.
Well, the issue is that "business subcultures" aren't usually called cultures. In any case, it seems to me that the difference between your line of thinking and the "hobby" line of thinking is possibly terminological to a significant extent. The reason being that by your own definitions, it really seems that a culture can be anything, which means that most hobbies have cultures, the issue is that this kind of view of culture basically makes it individualistic enough as to be practically meaningless, as then EVERYONE exists in a set of different cultures, even the whitest of white people.
Actually, I went with a religious thinker, JP Moreland, on the matter of religious practices being reduced to hobbies, so it is not as if I am just dumb to religion but rather am citing a religious thinker's view on the matter.
In any case, Monty, if all you mean by "multiculturalism" is that there are subgroups in society, then just about any larger grouping of people MUST be multicultural, and there is no reason to say that my friends don't compromise a culture full of whatever in-jokes we love. The issue is that this kind of a definition of multiculturalism, where multiple cultures MUST exist in a large group, also doesn't seem meaningful, as there is no way to claim anything about multiculturalism, only discuss the levels of toleration.
In any case, a concern at this point seems to really be whether the question is as silly as "Does the man go round the squirrel or not?". As I am not sure if there is a difference in our statements that is anything but how terms are used, and I really don't care to argue that issue as people can use whatever terms they feel like. I mean, the question for you still stands whether the term "multiculturalism" is meaningful. Under your view it seems to be a tautology, under my view it seems to be an impossibility, and because of that, any dichotomy between multiculturalism and not multicultural seems empty, but such a dichotomy seems necessary for the multicultural movement. So, where do we disagree substantively on this issue? "Hobby" vs "culture/subculture" doesn't seem substantive to me.
Ichinin
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.
So, basically, so long as there is a dominant culture that you agree with that sets the rules, other ideas can exist as hobbies for people to toy around with, yes?
So, really, it seems as if you think that multiculturalism cannot realistically exist. As you want a dominant culture that you like because you think without your dominant culture, there is a threat of a culture that you dislike taking control over social functions. Correct? After all, I wouldn't call secularism, an attitude towards the proper workings of society, to have nothing to do with culture.
No, it can exist. In a SECULAR society. That means, no religious NUTS that control what people can or cannot say.
_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)
Secularism is a cultural attribute. The lack of religious nuts or empowerment to religious nuts demands cultural rejection of religious nuts(this includes pseudo-religious figures as well, many of whom can be avowedly atheist). I don't see how you can get around this.
Parts of the discussion remind me of the distinction between the many languages of Papua New Guinea - many reference works claim that Papua New Guinea has more languages than any other comparable sized region or population. Consider wikipedia's take:
When that country was an interest of mine, I went to a national anthropology conference as I knew that several PNG scholars would be there. Over coffee, I was discussing the language issue with one. He said that the idea that New Guinea had so many languages was a by-product of the people studying it ... among linguists, there are 'splitters' who proclaim two related languages distinct, and 'clumpers' who would proclaim the same two languages as variants of the same language. In the 1950s and 60s, the people studying Papua New Guinea were mostly splitters.
Culture is the same way - there is a continuum (as with language, or aspiness) ... depending on who is studying it, the scale the think is important, and other arbitrary factors, it is easy to call two things variants of the same culture, two subcultures, or even two separate cultures.
When that country was an interest of mine, I went to a national anthropology conference as I knew that several PNG scholars would be there. Over coffee, I was discussing the language issue with one. He said that the idea that New Guinea had so many languages was a by-product of the people studying it ... among linguists, there are 'splitters' who proclaim two related languages distinct, and 'clumpers' who would proclaim the same two languages as variants of the same language. In the 1950s and 60s, the people studying Papua New Guinea were mostly splitters.
Culture is the same way - there is a continuum (as with language, or aspiness) ... depending on who is studying it, the scale the think is important, and other arbitrary factors, it is easy to call two things variants of the same culture, two subcultures, or even two separate cultures.
Ha! Very good reference thanks for sharing that. I suppose I am showing myself as a strong clumper here. The issue is always of course whether the clumpers and splitters are referring to the same facts, not what aesthetic taste in organizing their thoughts they take. I mean, the squirrel-man reference is a William James reference to basically say that there is no sense in arguing where the disagreement is purely terminological rather than fundamental.
It seems to me that ‘culture’ is often used as a sort of vague, airy-fairy term for people who don’t want to think about race (or who don’t want other people to think about race). ‘Multiculturalism’ is then also a vague term, and questions like ‘is multiculturalism working?’ are very ambiguous.
If you view ‘multiculturalism’, as I do, as a word Western elites have used to dress up in pretty language the ethnic invasion of European (and all Western) lands they have engineered for their own selfish ends, then I would yes, multiculturalism has so far worked all too well.
But now more and more people are waking up to what is going on.
The cliches people have learnt to parrot in support of multiculturalism don’t convince me all that much. (‘It’s good because it’s good to learn about other ways of doing things’ etc etc)
Does an Englishman need to live down the road from 1,000 Russians in order to enjoy a Dostoyevsky novel? No. Does he need to live down the road from 1,000 Japanese people in order to enjoy a Kurosawa film? No.
Aren’t you a pro-Zionist?
I’m just curious here.
1. Do you support Israel as a homeland for Jews?
2. If yes to question 1, do you think it is legitimate for Europeans to want for themselves in their ancestral lands what the Jews have in Israel?
The only real exception to this I can think of is Switzerland, but that's because they're united in keeping everyone else out.
In Yugoslavia, it was a matter of karma. Under Tito, the Serbs maintained a 'Greater Yugoslavia' by repression of minorities. When Tito died, it came unwound ... when different provinces tried to secede, the Serbs went in to murder and rape. Yugoslavia only proves that brutal Serbs are brutal.
I think Yugoslavia provides evidence for Cyanide’s point – that having different ethnic groups in large numbers in the same state leads to conflict – and that your attempt to show that Yugoslavia was something different is a bit tenuous, with respect.
Why was repression necessary in the first place? Perhaps because that’s the only way to hold a multiracial society together?
Btw, Tito was half-Croat, half-Slovene. My understanding is that he divided Yugoslavia into regions so as to reduce Serbian power – with several Serbs under Croat governance and several Serbs under Bosnian governance – and that when Yugoslavia broke up, the Croats and Bosnians wanted to keep Tito’s borders, and that this is why the Serbs protested.
In the case of Switzerland, it helps that they have remained neutral. (Is this what Cyanide meant?)
If Switzerland had joined in during WWII, the Swiss-Germans, Swiss-French and Swiss-Italians probably would not have been keen on fighting, respectively, their German, French and Italian brothers.
Congratulations. Wake us up when you actually have something to say.
It seems our racists are seasonal posters- I expect that, like codarac, brusilov will appear from time to time with a flurry of posts, then mostly disappear.
Such brilliant insight. I have one of my own. It is this:
It seems our windbags are daily posters. I expect that, like vibratetogether, Orwell will back in here tomorrow posting more of his sludge.
Btw, it’s liberals like you who are the real racists, but you’re too naïve to understand why, so it’s not really your fault.
If Switzerland had joined in during WWII, the Swiss-Germans, Swiss-French and Swiss-Italians probably would not have been keen on fighting, respectively, their German, French and Italian brothers.
Actually, I was referring to their extremely strict immigration policies. You have to live there for 12 years to even be considered being given citizenship. After that 12 years, I think the town you live in has a vote on whether or not you should be a citizen (of course the politically correct crowd calls this "racist").
Why was repression necessary in the first place? Perhaps because that’s the only way to hold a multiracial society together?
Was it necessary? Was the only way to have a stable and prosperous Yugoslavia through a dictatorship of the proletariat, who united the country by repressing non-Serbian languages and customs?
Having multiple interest groups (cultures/races/etc) can make a large nation state less coherent ... a strong, uncomplicated ethnic identity can be unifying. But trying to fix the 'problem' of multiple cultures by suppressing minorities doesn't always work, and often causes more problems than it solves. I would argue that countries like Singapore prove it is better to enforce multiculturalism and instead repress anyone trying to stir up problems between different cultures.... Singapore is prosperous, all groups have opportunity and freedom to practice their own cultures. But there is a line drawn against being too critical of other groups or inciting strife, and when people cross that, they are taken down a notch.
One could point to Northern Ireland as proof that 'multiculturalism' leads to violence - but the religious and language and world-view differences there are merely symbols of the economic divide ... the British invaded and sent in settlers to occupy the northern counties, and these not only had a different 'culture' in touchy-feely terms, they also had distinctly different economic interests, which were very different than the people living there. This is what is going on in many countries (often such states were created arbitrarily by colonial powers in Europe, who simply drew lines on maps, with no regard to splitting some cultural groups in half, or clumping together different cultures that were long antagonistic). It isn't surprising that clumping pastoral nomads with landed farmers and an urban class with industrial aspirations might creates economic and political problems - language and religion and styles of dress might feed into that, but the problems are often much deeper.
The bloodiest schism in the United States was the north-south divide in the 1880s. Biggest factor that led to this schism? Economics. Maybe opponents of multiculturalism should focus more on fostering or imposing a uniform economic culture?
Only partly correct - they weren't disputing Tito's borders as much as sovereignty - the Croats and Bosnians wanted greater independence, or complete political independence, and the Serbs didn't want an end to Yugoslavia. And on a local scale, once the slide started, Serbs were digging up old histories to reclaim Serbian lands from centuries ago and purging these areas of non Serbs.
Tito was a complex character, and in some ways (especially in the early years) he can be seen as the benevolent strong man who simply wanted everyone inside greater Yugoslavia to get along. He did sometimes try to broker 'reasonable' compromises to keep people happy ... but he also ended up engaging in repression to maintain power and the state.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -hist2.htm
Last edited by monty on 24 Jun 2009, 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
You couldnt be more wrong. Canada is defined in just that way. Canada is divided culturally into three areas. The west, center and the east. Each of those areas consists of a mixing of ethnic groups, and each of those areas ethnic groups are different from the other areas.
The west has a lot of people of eastern european decent, as well as many Russians, Germans, Swedes, and Netherlanders, as well as a fair amount of French and English. Central Canada has a lot of French, English, Italians, Greeks, Jews, and many others. The eastern Portion of Canada has a lot of Irish, English, Welsh, Scottish.
These people come from countries that traditionally fight each other! But there is no internal ethnic violence on a society level. And the three regions might argue, but thats politics. We dont fight either.
In fact, Canada as a ethnically mixed country, should be torn apart according to what you claim. And yet, we've never had a civil war!
You are wrong.
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.