Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Capntastic]

Why does everyone hate the colored paper ancedote so much?

Because it's an unsourced anecdote.

Japanese cultural is basically mainstream now in America. People like it and adopt it for it's own merit.

Like this is.  People in America usually don't wear kimono, people aren't typically practitioners of Shinto, chopsticks aren't mainstream utensils, etc.  Most people don't watch anime or eat pocky, either.


Edit:  I just realized how absolutely stupid it is to say that people automatically accept the culture of outgroups and aren't likely to voraciously demonize them, using Japanese Americans as an example, given their treatment during WW2.  Regardless, this is veering pretty far off topic and I don't want to incur Aqizzar's glares.  If you want to spin this discussion off onto its own thread that's fine, but I'm not really going to continue explaining why raging against teaching cultural unity is kind of dumb.

[G-Flex]

If your example has to be so apocryphal and extreme that it's probably completely fabricated, what does that say about your ability to back up your point?

Why does everyone hate the colored paper ancedote so much?

... Because it's pulled out of thin air? I could make up unsubstantiated anecdotes to prove my points, too, but I won't, because it's intellectually dishonest and completely useless.

I wonder if this isn't cause vs corrolation. There is a culture that likes to remain distinct, there is a reason people in ghettos are poor.

The reason people in ghettos are poor is because they're in the goddamn ghetto, generally with very poor access to education, decent jobs, any means of prestige (good clothing, means of conspicuous consumption, an accent that sounds "proper"), and none of the privilege that comes with a less-poor upbringing. If you're going to tell us that people actually avoid upward mobility because they like living in poverty with their friends, I'd love for you to actually take a poll and see if that's the case, because I can tell you right now that it isn't.

I've never heard a decent argument as to why diversity is some desired thing that needs to be actively persued. I accept it as a natural occurance, rather then something that needs to be forced or advocated.

I just did. Sorry. I already mentioned division of labor and evolutionary biology as examples. In a social group, it pays for people to have different strengths and weaknesses, because one person's strength compensates for the other's weakness. That's why it's advantageous to have some people who are better at others at certain things, because we don't all do the same things. It's helpful and appropriate to have different ways of looking at problems, different ways of viewing the world, and different strengths and weaknesses over all, because that just adds to the toolset, so to speak (to continue that analogy, do you want every single tool in your toolbox to be the same size and shape, too?). This is true on a person-to-person basis and a culture-by-culture basis.

Immigrants should come to a country because they want to belong there. Not come there to bring their own ideologies and culture and live seperate from the natives. That's basically what colonialism was all about. Some of the most prosperous nations on earth are overwhelmingly homogenous. Japan, South Korea, the Scandinavian countries, ect. I can think of some more "diverse" nations not nearly so prosperous.

Do you know one significant reason why Japan is so prosperous right now? Because they actively sought out how other nations/cultures did things and incorporated those ideas and methods into their own. When even Japan, a very historically isolationist nation, can accept the value of the influence of another culture, it becomes fairly obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Also: Colonialism is about displacement. The British Colonies that became the US did not live and work in Native American society by Native American rules, they displaced the Native Americans, and quite forcibly!

Thats from intergration and tolerance, not multiculturalism, which is what I mean.

If there isn't any multicultural element, there is no need for tolerance. You're the one being intolerant of other cultures living in the US, here. And yes, I hate to say this, but those groups, to one extent or another, still have their own culture and in spades.

Seriously, the reason a group is at all able to integrate themselves into American culture is because people finally became accepting of their culture to begin with. How the hell do you expect a culture to integrate itself into ours if we shun them and alienate them by trying to make them feel bad for even having their own culture to begin with?

I don't believe every culture in the world is compatible with one another, nor do I believe every ideology or philisophy is worth equal consideration. Some ideas are crap.

There's a huge difference between "every culture in the world is compatible with one another" and "cultures can possibly learn something from one another". There's also a huge difference between "all ideas are worth equal consideration" and "we should explore the ideas of others in order to at least be able to fairly judge how worthy of consideration they are".

[Montague]

Ok, I think we are now just arguing about the semantics of the word "Multiculturalism" here because I'm in agreement with much of what anybody is saying. It's been implimented in Europe differently then how it works in the USA, but thats another topic entirely.

Except the diversity thing, which the way G-flex describes it sounds rather racist and stereotypical. It sounds like "we need a variety of people, like we need a variety of tools in a toolbox, for example the Asians can do all the math and the Africans can win all the sporting events." I don't buy that and it seems like that is the concept of multiculturalism that I don't agree with.

Also, the American cultural is dynamic and 'mainstream American culture' is a bit of a misnomer, because it values individuality and freedom above anything else. We do adopt other cultures, but we do not buy them wholesale either. There is variance and flexibility within the mainstream culture A guy can get Chinese lettering tattooed, know karate, eat tacos drink German beer, practice Catholism and not speak anything besides English. That's just fine, thats well within the mainstream norm.

I'd bring up a few more points, but as it's been pointed out, the thread is now wildly off topic and we are now obligated to discuss the boring semantics of different flavors of Republicans and why we don't like any of them.

I don't like Mitt Romney because he likes to fire people.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Except the diversity thing, which the way G-flex describes it sounds rather racist and stereotypical. It sounds like "we need a variety of people, like we need a variety of tools in a toolbox, for example the Asians can do all the math and the Africans can win all the sporting events." I don't buy that and it seems like that is the concept of multiculturalism that I don't agree with.

I have no idea how you got that out of his depiction of diversity. Seriously, way to blow my mind.

[G-Flex]

Except the diversity thing, which the way G-flex describes it sounds rather racist and stereotypical. It sounds like "we need a variety of people, like we need a variety of tools in a toolbox, for example the Asians can do all the math and the Africans can win all the sporting events." I don't buy that and it seems like that is the concept of multiculturalism that I don't agree with.

... I'm not trying to stereotype at all. Different cultures tend to have different perspectives on things, different languages, different worldviews, and different methods of achieving different tasks, and this is valuable. I'm not trying to ascribe anything to race at all, and I find it pretty insulting that you think I am.

I don't like Mitt Romney because he likes to fire people.

Please tell me you aren't one of the people who actually thinks he said that.

[Aqizzar]

Believe it or not, I actually don't have a problem with this discussion taking place, mostly because it does directly relate to the election and some of its bigger, nebulous issues.  Plus, it would probably stagnate and disappear if I forced it to move.  I do want to remind everyone that civility is required here, at least when speaking of other people in the thread (you can insult people who aren't Bay Watchers as much as you want, I don't care).

By the way, when I first heard that one of symposiums was called "The Failure of Multiculturalism", my first thought was that it might be a self-critical examination of how the conservative movement, and its political embodiment in the Republican Party, never seems to attract more than about a third of Hispanics and about seven black people, no matter how much "broadening the tent" campaigns they launch.  Then I remembered that it's CPAC - they check for self-criticism at the door.  And then I heard that the panel's keynote speaker was a White Nationalist, and it all just rolls on from there.

[Montague]

... I'm not trying to stereotype at all. Different cultures tend to have different perspectives on things, different languages, different worldviews, and different methods of achieving different tasks, and this is valuable. I'm not trying to ascribe anything to race at all, and I find it pretty insulting that you think I am.

I was attributing a similar viewpoint that I've heard to what you said, which was a dick move, my bad. My point is that I see multiculturalism as the concept of exploitating of the differences between distinct people and cultures within a single nation. This joke sort of illustrates that point of view.

In Heaven…

•the mechanics are German
•the chefs are French
•the police are British
•the lovers are Italian
•and everything is organized by the Swiss.
In Hell…

•the mechanics are French
•the police are German
•the chefs are British
•the lovers are Swiss
•and everything is organized by the Italians.

It should be, in heaven the mechanics, police, chefs, lovers and organizers are all Americans, because we've intergrated everything positive from other cultures into a single dynamic culture and discarded everything that isn't. Which is kind of a sappy metaphor. My point of view is there isn't a need to have multiple distinct cultures that are significantly different then one another. A melting pot of different ingrediants molded into a single homogenous mess is perferred. Not a 'cultural mosaic' that consists of distinct fragments peiced together into a whole. That doesn't work.

So what I'm basically trying to say is that I'm arguing semantics, abusing the apostrophe key and wasting everybody's time.

and I was just being facetious about Mitt Romney.

[G-Flex]

It should be, in heaven the mechanics, police, chefs, lovers and organizers are all Americans, because we've intergrated everything positive from other cultures into a single dynamic culture and discarded everything that isn't.

This is not possible. Just as no single person can embody the best traits of the best barbers, cooks, physicists, politicians, etc., no single culture can do so either. You cannot have the kind of strange homogeneous diversity that you're talking about (where individuals can vary but culture cannot), because much of what composes an individual, shapes him, and influences him is cultural in nature. Worldviews, language, ways of going about solving problems and doing things, are all highly cultural in nature. Everyone having the same exact culture essentially implies that everyone is raised the same, with the same thought and behavior paradigms, norms of behavior, practices, worldviews, and so forth. This does not encourage the kind of diversity necessary to have the "best of everything" blended into one pot, because it encourages people to be too much the same. And guess what: When people aren't all raised the same, that is what cultural diversity is.

[Capntastic]

The whole "germans are mechanics in heaven, chefs are french" viewpoint sort of makes sense if you see cultures as conforming to arbitrary data points based in stock stereotypes.  This isn't Pokemon, French food doesn't beat Japanese food while in turn being weak to Tex-Mex.  They're just different in specific ways.  Understanding that (and other cultural differences) helps you deal with them.  Saying that French People are good cooks is on par with saying that Native Americans are good trackers, and, further on, similar things that border on outright racism.  The real world isn't D&D where Germans (Orcs) get +2 strength and -1 dex, or whatever.

People are just, you know, people.  And culture isn't just straight up "being good at things".

[Montague]

It should be, in heaven the mechanics, police, chefs, lovers and organizers are all Americans, because we've intergrated everything positive from other cultures into a single dynamic culture and discarded everything that isn't.

This is not possible. Just as no single person can embody the best traits of the best barbers, cooks, physicists, politicians, etc., no single culture can do so either. You cannot have the kind of strange homogeneous diversity that you're talking about (where individuals can vary but culture cannot), because much of what composes an individual, shapes him, and influences him is cultural in nature. Worldviews, language, ways of going about solving problems and doing things, are all highly cultural in nature. Everyone having the same exact culture essentially implies that everyone is raised the same, with the same thought and behavior paradigms, norms of behavior, practices, worldviews, and so forth. This does not encourage the kind of diversity necessary to have the "best of everything" blended into one pot, because it encourages people to be too much the same. And guess what: When people aren't all raised the same, that is what cultural diversity is.

I disagree. For one, the US mainstream culture isn't a lockstep, homogenous culture. It emphasises individuality and freedom and largely rejects tradition and conformity. It's a unified culture, without being conformist or homogenous. Thats how it differs from other countries. The US is a good example of why intergration works, Yugoslavia is a good example of why the cultural diversity of the type you are talking about does not work.

Here are some news articles demostrating how 'state cultural diversity' in Europe has failed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/February/Frances-Sarkozy-Multiculturalism-Has-Failed/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451

[G-Flex]

That's also true. Usually*, it's less about being objectively "better" at things and more at being able to tackle similar problems from different angles, which in turn is useful because sometimes one approach is more applicable than another.


* I say "usually" because sometimes a given culture does have more of a tradition of engaging in some task than another culture does. All cultures cook, but not all cultures, say, do a lot of fishing, or have similarly strong written vs. oral tradition, or what have you.

I disagree. For one, the US mainstream culture isn't a lockstep, homogenous culture. It emphasises individuality and freedom and largely rejects tradition and conformity. It's a unified culture, without being conformist or homogenous.

You can't have it both ways. Individuals cannot meaningfully differ in the way we're describing unless segments of the population can also differ. Even when individuals differ in specific ways by chance, they tend to coalesce into groups with their own standards, norms, and ways of doing/viewing things. This is how subcultures happen. You simply cannot have a culturally homogeneous society while retaining a significant degree of individual heterogeneity. In addition, when individuals differ significantly, it's for significant reasons; people are not self-made and their ideas and methods do not spring out of nowhere. They are, by and large, learned. Do you know what it is when different groups of people have different ideas and ways of doing things, which they then pass on to others and (when applicable) their children? That is the very meaning of cultural diversity.

You're also denying the fact that cultural diversity can exist within a larger culture. For instance, it is obvious that religious and ethnic groups in this country can retain their own culture while still being integrated into a greater culture; this happens all the time. For example, families of different ethnic backgrounds tend to retain significant elements of their parent cultures even if they are well-integrated into American culture. The same, again, can be said of most of what you'd call "subcultures". It is entirely possible for cultural diversity/variation to exist but for those variants to still be functioning as part of the parent culture, as opposed to competing with it. You're pretending that multiculturalism has to mean that different cultures are competing with each other, when in fact it can very well mean that they are all functioning as variations within a large monoculture into which they've integrated.

[Montague]

Ok, now we are arguing about the semantics of the word 'multiculturalism' again.

...For example, families of different ethnic backgrounds tend to retain significant elements of their parent cultures even if they are well-integrated into American culture. The same, again, can be said of most of what you'd call "subcultures".... It is entirely possible for cultural diversity/variation to exist but for those variants to still be functioning as part of the parent culture, as opposed to competing with it... all functioning as variations within a large monoculture into which they've integrated.

You just hit on the points I've been trying to make. This is intergration you are describing- like you have in the USA (and perhaps Brazil and other nations) which differs from 'multiculturalism', the distinction of which is that multiculturalism is defined as independant monocultures existing in the same nation. The peices that don't touch in the 'cultural mosaic'. Having defined subcultures within a larger mainstream culture is not multiculturalism.

You can look up "American Mainstream culture" and bloggers and folks will argue and wonder if there even is such a thing. I say there is, but just because individuals still like to pidgeonhole themselves into subcultures doesn't mean they do not belong to the larger mainstream culture of the nation as well.

So... when you read "multiculturalism has failed", they are talking about the European model. Trying to have distinct monocultures co-existing in the same nation under the same laws and everything. It doesnt' mean the US model of intergration has failed, because it obviously has not failed by any interpretation, which is why I wonder why the flawed philosophy of multiculturalism the Europeans have attempted is being advocated in public schools here.

[Capntastic]

You see, in my precision calculated metaphor, the things you say don't mean what they actually are,

Montague, what do you think multiculturalism is if not a co-understanding of culture between one group and another?  There's not a dichotomy between "multiculturalism" and "melting pot homogenization" that makes them incompatible.

Saying that an individual's culture should be ignored to further a monocultural ideal is pretty much in line with saying that the minority needs to shape up or ship out.  It places a negative onus on them, and makes them the target of some heinous stuff.  Multiculturalism pretty much seeks to be more inclusive of people, avoiding "othering" people from outgroups, and recognizing privilege.  Those are all pretty solid goals.

Do you think that Native Americans on reservations should be pressured into giving up their traditional lifestyles to conform to the 'American culture'?  Do you think that we should hold the ideal of an 'American culture' to be above the Native American traditional lifestyle, thereby giving implicit disapproval of it?  Do you not see how that sort of thought can lead to some really awful stuff?

[Montague]

You see, in my precision calculated metaphor, the things you say don't mean what they actually are,

Montague, what do you think multiculturalism is if not a co-understanding of culture between one group and another?  There's not a dichotomy between "multiculturalism" and "melting pot homogenization" that makes them incompatible.

I thought I've beat this point to death already and pointed out the distinctions.

Saying that an individual's culture should be ignored to further a monocultural ideal is pretty much in line with saying that the minority needs to shape up or ship out.  It places a negative onus on them, and makes them the target of some heinous stuff.  Multiculturalism pretty much seeks to be more inclusive of people, avoiding "othering" people from outgroups, and recognizing privilege.  Those are all pretty solid goals.

I'd say that a immigrant need not migrate new country if they are intolerate of the native culture there. I also don't think the native culture needs to cater or appease immigrant groups if there is a conflict. I believe tolerance and inclusiveness should apply to the immigrant as well.

Do you think that Native Americans on reservations should be pressured into giving up their traditional lifestyles to conform to the 'American culture'?  Do you think that we should hold the ideal of an 'American culture' to be above the Native American traditional lifestyle, thereby giving implicit disapproval of it?  Do you not see how that sort of thought can lead to some really awful stuff?

Native Americans belong to their own nations, with their own distinct laws and the US government treats them (more or less) as seperate nations. That's what the reservations are for. This is how that differs from multiculturalism, which is multiple cultures in the same nation they are free to their own devices if they so chose and rightfully so. If they don't like the US mainstream culture they have their own nation they can be apart of.

[Capntastic]

This is how that differs from multiculturalism, which is multiple cultures in the same nation they are free to their own devices if they so chose and rightfully so. If they don't like the US mainstream culture they have their own nation they can be apart of.

How does an attitude like this help any sort of integration?