I'm getting the feeling that Pseudonymous is thinking more along the lines of specific traditions that are part of but not the entirety of some cultures that provide issues with multiple cultures interacting. Like how one culture has a tradition that another culture finds crude and offputting, to remove that one tradition so the two cultures could intermingle peacefully. But even this lighthearted interpretation falls into the same trap of who decides what is right and wrong? Should the culture with the tradition lose it, or should the other culture accept that these people are different but there is no real harm in this tradition?
I'm not terribly agreeing with him, but he could be pushing for a message that is a bit more innocent than what we are picking up.
Not quite. I don't believe there should be official support or backing for the proliferation or persistence of traditional cultures, whatever they may be. Modern culture has effectively no relation to any traditional culture at this point, as regardless of where various elements ultimately originated they have been warped and altered to an unrecognizable point. Trying to preserve and/or cultivate separate cultures against the annihilating presence of modern culture is doing a gross injustice to those you attempt to preserve it in, because it sets them apart from society. When it is something trivial, like traditional foods or aesthetics, that is different, as it has no bearing on society as a whole. When it is a divisive culture, like that espoused by marginalized elements of any group, such as those Blacks who are impoverished and live in effectively segregated neighborhoods, and in whom a strong persecution complex and hatred of outsiders ends up cultivated, or in the equivalently ill-educated, impoverished, and insular White communities that cultivate much the same persecution complex and hatred, or even something relatively innocuous, like the Amish who reject modern society and technology, then it is something that should not be tolerated by the state.
But, even the trivial and innocuous things, like food, music, etc: why should the state take it upon itself to propagate these things? They are irrelevant to all of society but those for whom it is a personal tradition. They waste money and time attempting to proliferate culture that no one but the people who already practice it gives a shit about.
Ok, cite me three preeminent empire from Africa. Cite me three men who impacted considerably the development of science and are coming from Africa. bonus point if at leas one of hem is not Muslim. Could you make me a brief summary of the colonization? Who did the Boers fight against in the well known war of the Boers? Bonus point : how did all that impact WWI?
If you can't answer, you need one more black history month.
You do realize that the average american couldn't even tell you
who was involved in WWI, and would probably say something about nazis, right? They likewise couldn't name any scientist beyond the small handful whose importance is grossly overemphasized, or name any European empire besides the British, which they would be hard pressed to provide any "facts" about beside "they invaded the United States and we kicked der asses!", and the Romans, about whom they could only proclaim "dey killed Jesus and something about water or something!"
When people can't provide facts about the history of things directly responsible for their way of life, why on Earth should they be expected or required to know facts about something that had exactly no bearing on their lives?
Author
Topic: Black History Month (Read 5555 times)