Multiculturalism = fracturing of society.

seba said:
Which part do you find offensive?
Click to expand...

All of it.

Look we just don't agree, lets leave it at that. I already explained what I think about it. It seem simple to me that we are essentially equal - the same - and any other detail is just that, detail. This is more of a philosophical argument than a materialist one, but you will discuss what you consider to be 'material facts', which to me are irrelevant and which have been used to justify exploitation and discrimination, and every other ugly thing that seeks to divide.
 
LittleLissa said:
Look we just don't agree, lets leave it at that. I already explained what I think about it. It seem simple to me that we are essentially equal - the same and any other detail is just that detail. This is more of a philosophical argument than a materialist one, but you will discuss 'material facts' forever arguing your point...and I will argue mine from my standpoint.

Pointless.
Click to expand...

OK, let's say I agree with that, although I think you missed the point what I've tried to say.
I agree with what you've said now too, it's just an extension of my thought too. :)
 
seba said:
Actually modern multi-culturalism is death to cultures. It would like to make a mono-culture, where everything is the same ironically.
Click to expand...

I was never on the same page with you on that view.
 
LittleLissa said:
I was never on the same page with you on that view.
Click to expand...

Aha that's the one. OK.

Well to have multi-culturalism the cultures need to be separated somehow (even quarters would do) and be proud of it and protect it, cherish it, keep the traditions, otherwise they just assimiliate into a mix that becomes the new culture.
But that culture is then same for everyone, hence a new mono-culture.

Is that better understandable?

I understand it goes counter idealism, I needed some time to understand it as well.
 
I think essentially I am speaking from the heart and you are speaking from the brain. Also I disagree because I grew up in multicultural London and was educated in a multicultural environment. I didn't wake up one day and think I was a Hindu, and the Turks didn't wake up one day thinking they were Somalian. We learnt from each other, appreciated each other and co-existed beautifully, without loosing any of our identity. Actually 'differences' can make us all more aware of our own heritage and culture (but in a non-competitive way). I think multiculturalism is extremely positive for society, it creates a melting pot of opportunity through diversity and difference - and is essentially exciting and creative.

I'm not sure about countries loosing their 'native' identities. Essentially something of a countries character I'm sure remains the same. Also in my view if things change than they change. We are living in a changing and evolving world and change will not be stopped. I would like to be free to live where I choose and think that this is a right most people want. We have to come to terms with being a global society. Borders will become more and more irrelevant when we try and deal with the problems we share in the world.
 
Last edited:
It's not genuine culture if you force it anyway. If people do mix their cultures it's because they naturally want to.

Culture is what people genuinely identify with. If you have to keep it on life support artificially then that means people aren't really interested in it. That's not culture, that's being afraid of change.
 
sprinkles said:
It's not genuine culture if you force it anyway. If people do mix their cultures it's because they naturally want to.
Click to expand...

Society and the norms in society also facilitate this or not. Segregation is 'natural' in societies that create segregation. Integration is natural (when it happens), whereas segregation, in my opinion is not (I'm thinking along the lines of race, American, South Africa). It is also true that the more people are 'exposed' to the 'out group', the 'other' the more we 'humanise' or relate to them (as the individuals they are), and see them as a fellow human being. Similarly, the more segregation there is the more we see the 'other' as dangerous and alien. This is all discussed and understood in Social Psychology. Segregation is really a result of fear and the need for superiority essentially. We see ourselves as belonging to our 'group' and everyone else outside of that as 'alien'. OK this is an exaggeration but a lot of group dynamics and social norms are based on this 'in group' 'out group' think.
 
Last edited:
LittleLissa said:
Society and the norms in society also facilitate this or not. Segregation is 'natural' in societies that create segregation. Integration is natural (when it happens), whereas segregation, in my opinion is not (I'm thinking along the lines of race, American, South Africa). It is also true that the more people are 'exposed' to the out group, the 'other' the more people humanise them, and see them as a fellow human being...the more segregation there is the more we see the 'other' as dangerous and alien. This is all discussed and understood in Social Psychology. Segregation is really a result of fear and the need for superiority essentially.
Click to expand...

Segregation leads to make the groups more different, hence makes different cultures.

Integration makes people assimilate into common values and make them less different, hence makes it all a melting-pot mono-culture.

It takes generations of course.

I'm not implying we need segregation or that it's good, just I want to explain where I think it leads to.
 
seba said:
Integration makes people assimilate into common values and make them less different, hence makes it all a melting-pot mono-culture.
Click to expand...

And what are you basing this on? Because this has never happened, not even when minority cultures have been violently forced to assimilate.
 
88chaz88 said:
And what are you basing this on? Because this has never happened, not even when minority cultures have been violently forced to assimilate.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume violence or some sort of authoritarian force? I never talked about that, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear and you've thought that as implied.

Just look at US. Sure there are differences between ethnicities, but compare 3-4+ generation Americans to the original ethnic group. To whom they are more similar?
 
seba said:
Why do you assume violence or some sort of authoritarian force? I never talked about that, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear and you've thought that as implied.

Just look at US. Sure there are differences between ethnicities, but compare 3-4+ generation Americans to the original ethnic group. To whom they are more similar?
Click to expand...

Neither. There's no monolithic "American" culture, never has been and never will be.
 
LittleLissa said:
Society and the norms in society also facilitate this or not. Segregation is 'natural' in societies that create segregation. Integration is natural (when it happens), whereas segregation, in my opinion is not (I'm thinking along the lines of race, American, South Africa). It is also true that the more people are 'exposed' to the 'out group', the 'other' the more we 'humanise' or relate to them (as the individuals they are), and see them as a fellow human being. Similarly, the more segregation there is the more we see the 'other' as dangerous and alien. This is all discussed and understood in Social Psychology. Segregation is really a result of fear and the need for superiority essentially. We see ourselves as belonging to our 'group' and everyone else outside of that as 'alien'. OK this is an exaggeration but a lot of group dynamics and social norms are based on this 'in group' 'out group' think.
Click to expand...

Norms change according to people's needs and desires. If this were not true then we would still be drawing stick animals on cave walls.

It is true there is a natural tendency to form groups and segregate, but this will not halt progress no matter how much people want it to.
 
sprinkles said:
Norms change according to people's needs and desires. If this were not true then we would still be drawing stick animals on cave walls.

It is true there is a natural tendency to form groups and segregate, but this will not halt progress no matter how much people want it to.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point. My point was that Society and it's norms facilitate integration or segregation. It's also about ideology. Yes, we also tend to see in terms of 'us' and 'them' but people are as much cooperative and pro-social as they are competitive and prejudicial. It depends what the norm of the society is, as well as other things like competition for resources. (Rwandian genocide 1994).
 
LittleLissa said:
I don't understand your point. My point was that Society and it's norms facilitate integration or segregation. It's also about ideology.
Click to expand...
And it was my point that segregationist ideologies are basically just swimming against the current.

If they have to force the continued existence of their way of life, then their way of life might not be worth having to begin with.
 
sprinkles said:
And it was my point that segregationist ideologies are basically just swimming against the current.

If they have to force the continued existence of their way of life, then their way of life might not be worth having to begin with.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
sprinkles said:
Norms change according to people's needs and desires. If this were not true then we would still be drawing stick animals on cave walls.

It is true there is a natural tendency to form groups and segregate, but this will not halt progress no matter how much people want it to.
Click to expand...

So you are saying we won't have groups anymore but an uniform mono-culture. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top