Would you really care if your life was filled with no one whom did not share your race, your religion, your language, and you did not have to deal with outsiders or know them?

The pol lis, as always, public.

Please give an elaborated answers.

It sucks to suppose that other people fill your life.

I was born where I was born, on Planet Earth, without the opportunity to approve the location, and it has been much the same ever since: The more I think in terms of filling their lives the better it gets.

Life sux, and things suck, woman too :->

I myself came to realize this: Aside from my best friend being black/American Indian, I would not care at all if my life suddenly became homogenized. In fact, I might even prefer it.

Life sux, and things suck, woman too :->

But never you though - coincidence or just paying attention on the part of the ladies?

Where is the choice..."noone was around you"...

NO...i would not REALLY care if there is no diffrent or OP..since we dont live our lives just to observe things that won't benifits us right.. so why waste a time in that nonsense thing....since we are not here on eath just to do consider that things since we have our own mission here on earth thats why we better make a move on our mission than to notice and observe things that just will make our time wasted....;)

NO...i would not REALLY care if there is no diffrent or OP..since we dont live our lives just to observe things that won't benifits us right.. so why waste a time in that nonsense thing....since we are not here on eath just to do consider that things since we have our own mission here on earth thats why we better make a move on our mission than to notice and observe things that just will make our time wasted....;)

...oh so suddenly I find there is actually some purpose to life...

would you like eating the same meal over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

would you like eating the same meal over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

yes...if it was the meal that has all the vitamins, fats, nutrients, carbs, proteins I need for my body...to prevent APOPTOSIS...than YES! I WOULD.

NO...i would not REALLY care if there is no diffrent or OP..since we dont live our lives just to observe things that won't benifits us right.. so why waste a time in that nonsense thing....since we are not here on earth just to consider that things since we have our own mission here on earth thats why we better make a move now on our mission than to notice and observe things that just will make our time wasted....;)

yes...if it was the meal that has all the vitamins, fats, nutrients, carbs, proteins I need for my body...to prevent APOPTOSIS...than YES! I WOULD.
since the OP provided no standard on whose criteria we are to follow then i demand your meal to consist of a multi vitamin with enough wheat to provide the necessary bulk.

I would thoroughly enjoy it.

I wouldn't give a rats ass. People suck. The fewer varieties of suckage, the better.

Would you really care if your life was filled with no one whom did not share your race, your religion, your language, and you did not have to deal with outsiders or know them?

The pol lis, as always, public.

Please give an elaborated answers.

I married someone who did not share my race (aside from being human that is), religion (we're both atheists so it's a moot point really) and language. Would I want to live in a society where everyone was or thought as I did? Hell no. Had I done so I would never have met my dear husband and we'd never have married and had our beautiful son/terror and expecting son/terror number 2. We are complete opposites in just about everything but we're perfect together. Go figure.:D

How boring would it be anyway if we lived in such a society where you were like everyone else in race, looks, religion (or lack of) and language.

Dealing with outsiders.. well unless you live in a cave in the middle of nowhere, you need to deal with outsiders anyway as I would consider a stranger to be an outsider.

Would I want to live in a place where everyone had the same race, language and religion?

No.

What the fuck is the OP?

What the fuck is the OP?

Opening Post

How utterly boring life would be if everybody looked the same, acted the same, thought the same, had the same talents, etc.

James R.:

Does not it stand to reason that people would have different opinions, look different within the variety of a race, act according to their personalities, think differently on many matters, and had different talents, regardless of whether or not they shared one's culture, language, religion, et cetera?

How utterly boring life would be if everybody looked the same, acted the same, thought the same, had the same talents, etc.

you mean like if everyone was James R. and banned everyone else? :) :eek: yeah! than everyone would be banned!

James R.:

Does not it stand to reason that people would have different opinions, look different within the variety of a race, acted according to their personalities, thought differently on many matters, and had different talents, regardless of whether or not they shared one's culture, language, religion, et cetera?

For example?

SamCDKey:

To elaborate:

All races have a variety of traits that manifest in individuals differently. No one looks the same simply because they are of the same race - only similar in a broad sense. Accordingly, we would not have clones.

Cultures host a variety of opinions. This is why there are Far-Rightists and Far-Leftists and everything in between in every culture, as well as good and bad people, some people who like Friends and the heathens that do not...et cetera, et cetera.

Personalities are not homogenous even in cultures which are. There are mean people, happy people, smart people, obsessive people...

Presumably, people would develop different talents, also. Certainly not everyone is an artist, an engineer, a football player, et cetera, et cetera...

In essence, it would simply be "like one's life now" but without the inclusion of other cultures, races, religions, et cetera. Would this truly be a "bad world", as it were? I do not, myself, see any objectionable quality to this. There would also most certainly be a greater deal of harmony, owing to the fact that generally homogenous cultures do not have the stresses of differences.

SamCDKey:

To elaborate:

All races have a variety of traits that manifest in individuals differently. No one looks the same simply because they are of the same race - only similar in a broad sense. Accordingly, we would not have clones.

Cultures host a variety of opinions. This is why there are Far-Rightists and Far-Leftists and everything in between in every culture, as well as good and bad people, some people who like Friends and the heathens that do not...et cetera, et cetera.

Personalities are not homogenous even in cultures which are. There are mean people, happy people, smart people, obsessive people...

Presumably, people would develop different talents, also. Certainly not everyone is an artist, an engineer, a football player, et cetera, et cetera...

In essence, it would simply be "like one's life now" but without the inclusion of other cultures, races, religions, et cetera. Would this truly be a "bad world", as it were? I do not, myself, see any objectionable quality to this. There would also most certainly be a greater deal of harmony, owing to the fact that generally homogenous cultures do not have the stresses of differences.

So when you look at say, the Amish, Saudis, Eskimos, Chinese, etc. you immediately recognise how individualistic they are, inspite of their overt similarities?

SamCDKey:

Yes. I don't view them as simply mindless drones, awash in a world of little difference. Certainly, they hold more similarities than say, a hodge-podge cosmopolitan community, but I have no doubt that they are rich individuals. I am certain that Jebediah likes different jokes than Zacariah, or Tuttut and Inoko differ in their the type of fur they like to decoratively line their parka with.

SamCDKey:

Yes. I don't view them as simply mindless drones, awash in a world of little difference. Certainly, they hold more similarities than say, a hodge-podge cosmopolitan community, but I have no doubt that they are rich individuals. I am certain that Jebediah likes different jokes than Zacariah, or Tuttut and Inoko differ in their the type of fur they like to decoratively line their parka with.

So whats wrong with people trying to maintain separate cultural identities in a multicultural place?

After all, they are not all that homogenous within a racial/cultural group either are they, even if they appear to be so?

Like Jews, for example.

SamCDKey:

Multiculturalism forces one to accept the outsiders that impose that separation that leads to disunity and strife. Invariably, it also means a corruption, as mandates for "inclusion" destroy the shared aspects the non-diverse cultures have.

They are homogenous in the sense that they share many similarities and a foundation for brotherhood. Same race, same language, same religion, et cetera.

SamCDKey:

Multiculturalism forces one to accept the outsiders that impose that separation that leads to disunity and strife. Invariably, it also means a corruption, as mandates for "inclusion" destroy the shared aspects the non-diverse cultures have.

They are homogenous in the sense that they share many similarities and a foundation for brotherhood. Same race, same language, same religion, et cetera.

But if differences in outlook (which define personality and decision making) within a "homogenous group" cannot produce disunity, why would differences in race, religion, color, ethnicity, which are in any case, rarely a matter of choice?

Why should one feel "forced" to accept outsiders? Do you feel forced to eat bagels (Jewish) or pizza (Italian) or gyros (Greek)?

Does seeing an Orthodox Jew or an Amish woman give you the shudders or infringe on your idea of appropriate clothing?

Why does mediocrity appeal over the exotic, the eye-catching, the different? Why would you want everyone to be the same?

SamCDKey:

But if differences in outlook (which define personality and decision making) within a "homogenous group" cannot produce disunity, why would differences in race, religion, color, ethnicity, which are in any case, rarely a matter of choice?

The differences in outlook and personality actually do often cause strife, but not so much that the culture generally collapses. It is usually a personal matter. Rarely does it reach the point where it is so great that there is a true schism, although that has happened, also.

Moreover, you must consider the concept of human nature in this regard. The added pressure of differences in race, religion, colour, and ethnicity have always been (and indeed always will) devisive in societies. Societies have a foundation in unity and it is difficult, if not impossible, to hold fraternity with people with whom one shares so little. There is even an evolutionary consideration in that it acts against one's genetic interests to further the interests of someone alien to oneself, as it is unlikely they share one's genes.

Why should one feel "forced" to accept outsiders? Do you feel forced to eat bagels (Jewish) or pizza (Italian) or gyros (Greek)?

Considering there have been instances where cultural mandates have impacted my cultural expression - the proliferation of Spanish television and its usage in signs and in instruction manuals, the banning of Christmas and other decorations - to the point where it is an oppression to accept such outsiders. Moreover, the danger that some outsiders have presented have been enormous, in regards to illegal immigration and Islamic terror cells. They have arrested suspected terrorists in the Moslem enclave less than a mile from my home.

Does seeing an Orthodox Jew or an Amish woman give you the shudders or infringe on your idea of appropriate clothing?

It is funny that you mention Orthodox Jews, as they remain segregated by their own choice almost exclusively in 99 percent Jewish neighbourhoods.

Why does mediocrity appeal over the exotic, the eye-catching, the different? Why would you want everyone to be the same?

I am generally not titillated by meeting "exotic" people.

I believe the collapse of a culture is generally from within, due to dissolution of value systems, and has little or nothing to do with outside influences.

The example of the Jews holds true here as well. No matter where they live they maintain their identity, regardless of external influences not despite them.

SamCDKey:

What Rome's problems in regards to the intrusion of Germanic and Hunnic influences? As soon as it felt more Germanic than Roman, the empire collapsed miserably. When it retained a strong Roman character, it did not.

Also, almost all strife when Rome became an empire came from racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, I.E. the Jewish revolt in Judea, the Parthians in Parthia...

And it is only through rigid segregation that the Jews keep their identity. They litterally keep themselves boxed in. The plight of secularized Jews is that they are being absorbed into the larger culture and losing what makes them Jews. There have been recent articles on this in regards to how many Jews are trying to separate themselves now from being seen as simply "white", even if for a long time, they have tried to establish themselves as such (if they are secularized) through intermarriage and through stressing Jewishness only as a cultural quirk, rather than a racial and religious association.

James R.:

Does not it stand to reason that people would have different opinions, look different within the variety of a race, act according to their personalities, think differently on many matters, and had different talents, regardless of whether or not they shared one's culture, language, religion, et cetera?
if people were the same this entire thread wouldn't exist and you would already know the answers to the questions you posed in the above quote.

PJ
on the matter of sameness:
whose criteria are we to follow? yours? mine? some religious book? neanderthals?

SamCDKey:

What Rome's problems in regards to the intrusion of Germanic and Hunnic influences? As soon as it felt more Germanic than Roman, the empire collapsed miserably. When it retained a strong Roman character, it did not.

Also, almost all strife when Rome became an empire came from racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, I.E. the Jewish revolt in Judea, the Parthians in Parthia...

And it is only through rigid segregation that the Jews keep their identity. They litterally keep themselves boxed in. The plight of secularized Jews is that they are being absorbed into the larger culture and losing what makes them Jews. There have been recent articles on this in regards to how many Jews are trying to separate themselves now from being seen as simply "white", even if for a long time, they have tried to establish themselves as such (if they are secularized) through intermarriage and through stressing Jewishness only as a cultural quirk, rather than a racial and religious association.

I think you'll find that any culture that collapses does so because of its own excesses against its own people. When power is concentrated in the hands of a few people, it is brought down by that very ill-considered option called human nature.

I also find that though people may adapt to a different culture, if they have pride in their own, it will persist in some form or the other.

I believe the collapse of a culture is generally from within, due to dissolution of value systems, and has little or nothing to do with outside influences.

The example of the Jews holds true here as well. No matter where they live they maintain their identity, regardless of external influences not despite them.

Actually, Sam, the first and second parts of your post seem to contradict each other.
Have you considered that the Jews have maintained integrity precisely because of outside influence - in their case centuries of distrust and oppression?

There is nothing more likely to promote solidarity than pressure or an attack from an alien influence. The same effect can be observed in ghettos, in the middle east, in any example you care to name where a group is assaulted, either in perception or reality.
Strength is found in solidarity.

Actually, Sam, the first and second parts of your post seem to contradict each other.
Have you considered that the Jews have maintained integrity precisely because of outside influence - in their case centuries of distrust and oppression?

There is nothing more likely to promote solidarity than pressure or an attack from an alien influence. The same effect can be observed in ghettos, in the middle east, in any example you care to name where a group is assaulted, either in perception or reality.
Strength is found in solidarity.

There are Jews in India too, who have never suffered discrimination or oppression. However, they have still maintained their identity. Naturally, being Indian, I refer to them.:p

Oppression does not breed cultural pride, it breeds cultural fundamentalism and social isolation, same as monoculturalism.

That matters little - they still identify themselves as Jews, I'd presume. And thus believe themselves, or rather their cultural identity, to have been assaulted in the past.

That said, are there any cultural differences between them and what we might consider mainstream Jewish society?

That matters little - they still identify themselves as Jews, I'd presume. And thus believe themselves, or rather their cultural identity, to have been assaulted in the past.

That said, are there any cultural differences between them and what we might consider mainstream Jewish society?

How would you define mainstream Jewish society?

There are Jews in Russia too, they got their own Autonomic Republic within Russia! Its called Jewish Autonomic republic...its between Kazakhstan and China. They call themselves Jewish...so they jewish....

That's a sidestep.

It was a question - do you, living in the same country as Indian Jews, percieve any differences between them and those who live in the US, or Europe for example.

SamCDKey:

I think you'll find that any culture that collapses does so because of its own excesses against its own people. When power is concentrated in the hands of a few people, it is brought down by that very ill-considered option called human nature.

The Romans hardly oppressed their people. For the most part, life under Rome was fantastic, and the openess of Rome to other people, including becoming full-fledged citizens, was well known.

But when the assimilation of the Germans wasn't mandated and their intrusions were allowe dto go unchecked, their militance eventually manifested and they took over the place and Rome collapsed not soon after.

I also find that though people may adapt to a different culture, if they have pride in their own, it will persist in some form or the other.

That is precisely the problem, actually. For in so doing, they remain as outsiders, and separate the culture from the rest of it. One begins to have self-made ghettoes. Aliens in the midst of neighbours.

Leopold99:

PJ
on the matter of sameness:
whose criteria are we to follow? yours? mine? some religious book? neanderthals?

The criteria I set forth in the OP and in elaborations on what I had intended to discuss in this thread.

That's a sidestep.

It was a question - do you, living in the same country as Indian Jews, percieve any differences between them and those who live in the US, or Europe for example.

For me they are Indians, just like the Muslims and Hindus. However, when I visit them, they have a mezuzah on the door, they say their prayers in Hebrew and they celebrate all the Jewish festivals. That to me designates them as a Jew, same as the Quran and Salat defines a Muslim (who is Indian) and the Bhagvad Gita, Vedas and Puja define a Hindu.

I'm Indian but when I worked in Saudi Arabia, despite differences in our outlook on the same religion, being a Muslim gave me a connection to the Saudis who were culturally very very different. Similarities can be more potent than differences, depending on the importance you assign to them. If I was an ex-Muslim, no doubt working in Saudi Arabia would be difficult for me.:)

There were Jews from India who immigrated to Israel when it was formed. Their Jewishness sufficed to make them feel one. There were Indian Jews who returned back to India from Israel, their Indianness kept them from feeling at home with Europeans. Both sets of people are Jews but have different ideas about what they consider more important (Indian Jews btw, are also very religious, like most Indians).

SamCDKey:

The Romans hardly oppressed their people. For the most part, life under Rome was fantastic, and the openess of Rome to other people, including becoming full-fledged citizens, was well known.

But when the assimilation of the Germans wasn't mandated and their intrusions were allowe dto go unchecked, their militance eventually manifested and they took over the place and Rome collapsed not soon after.


.

There were several reasons for the collapse of Rome, but the chief one in my opinion is that they became so convinced with their notions of superiority that they began to decay as a civilisation. They believed they had reached the apex and stopped building, as they were wont to do. They became decadent and wasteful, creating large gaps between the people, so that the "barbarians" who came after saw them as dissipated weaklings. Basically Rome was its own downfall.

Similarities can be more potent than differences, depending on the importance you assign to them.
Ah, now this is precisely what I was aiming for.

I'm getting a little OT here, but this is very much the reason that American policy worked so well in Germany after WW2 - but it didn't in Asia (Vietnam) and it won't in the Middle East.

Those under some form of assault will react according to what they consider their primary identity.

I have to admit though, that posting while working isn't really conducive to a good discussion. I don't have much time to consider or go into any real detail.

Ah, now this is precisely what I was aiming for.

I'm getting a little OT here, but this is very much the reason that American policy worked so well in Germany after WW2 - but it didn't in Asia (Vietnam) and it won't in the Middle East.

Those under some form of assault will react according to what they consider their primary identity.

I have to admit though, that posting while working isn't really conducive to a good discussion. I don't have much time to consider or go into any real detail.

And there's (as one would say) the rub.

It is the perception of assault which creates the differences and which breeds separatism, not the culture per se. Ridicule will build walls faster than anything else on earth.

There is nothing more likely to promote solidarity than pressure or an attack from an alien influence. The same effect can be observed in ghettos, in the middle east, in any example you care to name where a group is assaulted, either in perception or reality.
My first post.
Now stop arguing ;).

SamCDKey:

There was a sense of hubris, yes. A sense of fatalism, also. Most definitely this was a Christian influence, as it truly switched people's focus from the here to the hereafter. Christians do not make good soldiers nor leaders, as it were.

My first post.
Now stop arguing ;).

Done.:p

SamCDKey:

There was a sense of hubris, yes. A sense of fatalism, also. Most definitely this was a Christian influence, as it truly switched people's focus from the here to the hereafter. Christians do not make good soldiers nor leaders, as it were.

Both cannot be true at the same time.:)

I was about to clarify my prior post, actually. But...

It can in Rome.

Rome thought herself superior to all things, but also that history was fated, and that the real world did not matter. Following the ending of the Pax Romana and the ascent of Christianity, Rome forgot that history was made by men. That though they were superior, they were not superior simply because they believed in it, but because they acted on it. Moreover, when their superiority began to crash to pieces they no longer had the power to build it again. This was not the case say, in the Roman Republic, which suffered terrible losses only to come back and take horrible vengeance upon those that attacked her.

The Celts and Cathaginians sure knew what it was to be put to a Roman sword. The Germans and Huns did not.

Would you really care if your life was filled with no one whom did not share your race, your religion, your language, and you did not have to deal with outsiders or know them?

The pol lis, as always, public.

Please give an elaborated answers.

Hitler, move your ass to Iceland. The only people there are White. Get the fuck out of America. This is cleary not the place you want to be asswipe.

What if no one had to die to make that happen? (I never intended it to be a matter of ethnic cleansing as it were). Would that change it? Or is the issue irrelevant to you?

Yes I think it would be boring I grew up in a fairly homogenous enviornment but I moved to the city (Philadelphia) when I was old enough and met and became friends/acquintances with a variety of folks with different backgrounds and ethnicity. I found that it broadened my horizons a good deal. I loved for example the fact that almost any type of food from any place in the world could be found within walking distance. I have now been in Norway for almost 9 years and have missed the variety (except in Oslo) but Norway is diversifying as well and everytime I walk into an iranian or chinese store I fell like I'm back in Philly:)

Excellent points, Prince James. It's always refreshing to meet someone who hasn't drunk the kool-aid. The immense logical blunder that some have made on this thread equating cultural and ethnic homogeneity to identical personalities defies belief. But it's an important part of the self-induced blinding that is required after drinking the kool-aid.

While I fully understand PJ's and your point it is nonetheless true that you are much more likely to encounter opposing perspectives when you meet people with cultural/ethnic/religious backgrounds which are divergent from your own.

Sock Puppet, it's not necessary to 'live with' opposing views in order to benefit from them. Long-distance communication is different than it once was. People can live in a multicultural soceity and still be profoundy ignorant and misinformed, and people can live in a homogeneous society and be knowledgeable and urbane.

I have always enjoyed being in the midst of foreigners. I try my best to pick up the language and within a few days I don't feel quite so isolated. The milieu is always fascinating. People are pretty much the same everywhere. There are always plenty who feel the same way and are interested in overcoming the differences and getting to know me.

I am constantly surrounded by people who do not share my religion, by definition, because I am an atheist and one does not run into other atheists very often, at least not any more in America. If the scenario requires that I be in the midst of a community of Abrahamists (Jews, or worse yet Christians, or especially Muslims) who all take their religion seriously, then I would have a problem. However, every religious community has its iconoclasts who are ostensibly of the faith but don't take it too seriously, and it's never hard to find them.

Sock Puppet, it's not necessary to 'live with' opposing views in order to benefit from them. Long-distance communication is different than it once was. People can live in a multicultural soceity and still be profoundy ignorant and misinformed, and people can live in a homogeneous society and be knowledgeable and urbane.


I can agree with that fully the only qualifier being the immediacy of the benefit of living "with it" as opposed to experiencing it seond hand. It is, admittedly, no easy road to hoe but well worth the effort. At the same time I believe it is up to the immigrant populations to adjust to thier new surroundings as opposed to the existing surroundings adjusting to them.

Lord Hillyer:

My thanks!

I can agree with that fully the only qualifier being the immediacy of the benefit of living "with it" as opposed to experiencing it seond hand. It is, admittedly, no easy road to hoe but well worth the effort. At the same time I believe it is up to the immigrant populations to adjust to thier new surroundings as opposed to the existing surroundings adjusting to them.

Adjusting is a two way street. It would have been a shame for the Italians to give up pizza.

If I could clone myself and everyone would be my clone, that would be heaven.

Adjusting is a two way street. It would have been a shame for the Italians to give up pizza.

That's not what I mean by adjusting that would ruin the best part of it:eek: I mean obeying the laws of the land, learning the language and gaining some understanding of the culture etc.

That's not what I mean by adjusting that would ruin the best part of it:eek: I mean obeying the laws of the land, learning the language and gaining some understanding of the culture etc.

Agreed.:)

I hate this thread. It's a ridiculous question.

As for myself, I live in an Alpha World City, and one of the reasons I would never live in a city that didn't have 10 million inhabitants is because they are so global. You have every race, every language, every culture, etc. and that's a very big part of the appeal.

it would be different and hard i give you that, but i would learn the other cultures and language and if i couldent because of hyperthetical rules of the post etc, then i guess i would have to make do and get on wiith it, (whatever it may be i dont know, making up alot of one man games i guess and hunting and building stuff etc,)



atleast you cant moan about getting no time for yourself huh


peace.

Would you really care if your life was filled with no one whom did not share your race, your religion, your language, and you did not have to deal with outsiders or know them?

The pol lis, as always, public.

Please give an elaborated answers.

Hell yes I'd care. I don't want everyone to be a clone, and I'm not gay.

So I'd like variety and diversity. I want to be around good diverse people.

Would I care if everyone was white, an atheist, and spoke English? Hell no, a lot of stupid things would stop happening

Hell yes I'd care. I don't want everyone to be a clone, and I'm not gay.

So I'd like variety and diversity. I want to be around good diverse people.

It doesn't say everyone would be male, and it never says they'd all share the same exact opinion.

Would you really care if your life was filled with no one whom did not share your race, your religion, your language, and you did not have to deal with outsiders or know them?

Please give an elaborated answers.

An answers? Anyway, if it was my life, yes, I would care. I've had a lot of influence in my life from people of a different race and/or religion than me. I have friends, family, and even foster parents who were black, and I've learned alot from christians aswell. I think that there should be communities of a single race/religion(moral beliefs also)/language, to make sure that there are always those type of people.