Multiculturalism is Nonsense

The last refuge ....

No, no. It's common sense. You know, common sense? The last refuge of the desperate?

• • •​

Follow the thread:

"Nationalism - not nationalism as you may think, but nationalism in the sense of establishing a firm national culture and values system and educating the next generation in such a system. Why not? Let's be united, and let's all have the goal of the nation at heart; why not?

Gay or straight or black or white, America is America and we need a firm and deep-rooted American culture and values system and a bit of national spirit. The people that are *ahem* diverse 'rebels' can leave." (#2438682/6)​

Enforcing a standardized culture only tramples diversity. What "culture" should we establish? Shall we harmonize all of our segments? What parts of your cultural familiarity will you give up for the greater good?

Practically speaking, how would we accomplish such a goal under the Constitution?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Two primary tenets in the establishment of the United States, and of its culture as well, are the principles of individual rights and personal liberty. Therefore the definition of the Nation is inherently diverse down to the scale of the individual.

What you describe is a totalitarian regime.

~Raithere

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Flavor of the month

It's his flavor of the month. See the discussion we've been having in my VMs: profile link. Apologies, of course, as I failed to thread my responses properly to make it a contiguous discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think unity is great and I think we have it, nothing is going to stop people's bickering over this and that. Take race and culture out of the picture and people clump up into other groups, based on their economic standing, based on age, based on who likes lima beans...etc. We have a nation with a shared value system and whether we like to acknowledge it or not the people have a similar goal as well. We just all have different ideas on how to achieve it, which personally I think is a good thing (albeit highly annoying most of the time).

 

Always fascinating to see the advocacy of authoritarianism / totalitarianism. It's as if they are third-person blind, unable to conceive of such a perspective from a vantage other than having their own beliefs enforced.

~Raithere

 

The national identity of the USA is multiculturalism. Duh.

 

No. A country is a geographic region. Countries often coincide with sovereign territory of a state and/or nation and/or government, but this is not necessary. There are many countries on the planet that do not coincide with states: Wales or the Virgin Islands, for example.

A state, in contrast, is a set of governing institutions.

Who is "we?"

Not necessarily. That would be an ethnic nation - and indeed ethnic nationalism is a major force in the world, as a glance at a map of, say, Europe will quickly reveal. But this is not a necessary component of national identity, and there exist many multi-ethnic nations: the United States, for one obvious example.

The definition of a "nation" is "a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin" (emphasis mine). That's from Wikipedia, BTW.

Who's ideal is that? Nation-states are certainly a popular phenomenon, but where is this assertion of their superiority coming from?

America is a nation.

Such as? The various tribes? It's not clear to me that they consider their tribal nationality to be exclusive of American nationality. Certainly it is not held to be such in US law.

Yet they all share a common national identity. Hence the obvious conclusion that the United States of America is a multi-cultural (small-m) nation.

Even if the premise held (and it doesn't), that wouldn't be "non-sensical." It would simply make America a multi-national state. And it wouldn't be the only one, by a long shot. Other obvious examples would be Canada, China, Belgium, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, etc. The list of unequivocable nation-state is actually pretty short, and comes nowhere near a majority of the states in the world.

The implied definition of "nation" is too narrow. A nation is a group of people that believes themselves to be such; if they decide that multiple cultural groups are all part of the nation, then what's the problem? There are myriad examples of exactly such multi-cultural nations: I've already listed America, but India would be another glaring example.

Why, again, are we supposed to regard such an outcome as a necessity?

 

By whom? Certainly not me as I explicitly mentioned that race is not a factor; rather, more important than race, is nation. Race is unimportant because race does not affect behavior or beliefs.

All of those; the first two, however, are real issues.

Having more than one religious community = tension, anger, and fighting over legislation and domestic morals. Either all be one religion or not be religious at all, but having different religions is a recipe for division.

I'm Syrian by birth, first of all, not Persian.

Secondly, you have no point at all; I am culturally American.

It doesn't matter to me, as long as we establish a standardized culture and standardized nation; that is the importance. Having such unity among the people is important in order for a nation to progress.
Just look at the America of today and the division between the conservatives and liberals? How can we ever get anywhere? Only if we choose one, eliminate the other, and absolutely be totally committed to ideology.

Amend or abolish it.

I don't disagree, but I never said the current state of America was ideal by any measure.

Absolutely. And why shouldn't a nation be totalitarian? Why shouldn't we be totally united?

 

Hello ... is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me.

And therein you find your racism.

 

Racism has to do with skin color and superficialities.

 

Firstly i apologise for calling you iranian if your syrian

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Secondly what the hell IS "american culture"?
going around killing anyone you feel like stroking your guns and eating Mac's until you explode like the guy in monty python's the meaning of life???

As soon as you get ANY form of contact with someone outside your community you get change as ideas flow between the groups. Wether this is in the forms of Tourisium, Communication (letters, phone, emails, the internet ect) or migration doesnt make 2 hoots of difference. About the ONLY cultures which can claim any sort of purity are the pigmies in the Amazon and the "New world" (US, Australia, NZ ect) none at all

 

Efforts to maintain national unity and culture don't mean that we can't enjoy other cultures, but that we must focus, within our nation, on the people of the nation, united in their beliefs and goals.

It is only common sense that a nation be totalitarian... totally united. How can you disagree?

 

HA, your joking right. The only way to make a "nation" totally united would be to kill everyone in it and leave them united in DEATH. everytime you put 2 or more people together they will have different aims, objectives and goals in mind wether its a nation, an organisation or simply a group of friends

 

Well, then the US blows, because it is pretty much based on the idea that different cultural groups can come and work and live together.

Actually it kinda does. Tolerate is a vague term, but it counters ideas of discrimination based on cultural or religious issues.

Which is a very clear form of tolerance. You don't have to like em, but you have to leave em alone.

 

The concept of Multiculturalism is to promote social cohesion while still allowing diversity.

I am proud to live in a multicultural nation. The more granulated the cultural subgroups the greater the nation.

Nationalism breeds contempt, intolerance and violence.

Governance via law defines a nation and without a clear mandate to maintain the right to social diversity and cultural identity we might as well all go back to fascism. We all know where that leads.

We live under one sun and take pride in our diversity. Love our world not our nation.

 

Not really. See Hotel Rwanda, where the US did not feel compelled to save the people [unlike Iraq and Afghanistan]

I believe the national identity of the US is public image. Which is centered around material wealth or media success [which again goes back to money]. You have to look, dress, talk and act a certain way to be considered acceptable. Thats not multiculturalism.

 

And culture

And culture.

(3) Cultural Racism: This term is being used with increasing frequency to draw attention to a shift in the focal point of much racism from physical characteristics such as social customs, manners and behavior, religious and moral beliefs and practices, language, aesthetic values and leisure activities. Whereas post-reflective gut racism seeks to explain and justify racist attitudes in religious or scientific terms, cultural racism attempts the same thing in cultural terms. It involves prejudice against individuals because of their culture. The culture of minority groups is seen as flawed in some way, and thus as standing in the way of their progress. Unlike post-reflective gut racism, however, cultural racism does not involve belief in the existence of any biological incapacity to change. On the contrary, change is exactly what is sought. Minorities are encouraged to turn their back on their own culture and to become absorbed by the majority culture.

(Halstead, italic accent added)​

To turn one's back on their own culture and become absorbed by the majority; that is exactly what you propose.
____________________

Notes:

Halstead, Mark. Education, Justice, and Cultural Diversity: An Examination of the Honeyford Affair, 1984-85. London, Falmer Press, 1988. AAD.English.UCSB.edu. December 14, 2009. http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Halstead.html

 

These have always been relative to the needs of the white majority. When the nation was being created American Indians and Africans had no such rights or liberty. Only when it became economically safe to do so were such rights 'extended' to them. This is certainly the case today with regards to America's foreign policy and how it uses 'rights' - as discussed in another thread. And as you prove with your next sentence, such 'rights' are the antithesis of any anthropological meaning of the word culture.

Cul-ture: Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture

Which is a another way of saying society is so atomized it has no culture, or, rather, it has an 'anti-culture' culture.

Which is fascinating as for most people America is the most nationalist country on Earth.

 

There's also McDonalds and Starbucks.

Self gratification regardless of others, basically, or even at their expense. Its like a nation of kids stuck in the ego stage of development, with no possibility of moving beyond it.

 

The point being that if the identity of the Nation includes multiculturalism and diversity then you have a contradiction, don't you? It would then be people like you, who are against a multicultural society that should be ejected.

I see three primary reasons.

One, is that this tends to work out well only for those in the position to make up the rules or who already fit the bill. For everyone else (meaning most people) it means oppression and persecution.

Two, is that I have yet to see you provide any evidence that it actually works. Historically it would seem that the tendency is for such societies to fragment or revolt.

Three, I would assert that such a condition can never be maintained. Societies are not static, they evolve over time. Suppression and persecution also tends to strengthen sub-cultures, unifying them, while subverting that of the aggressor.


"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.' " - 1984, George Orwell

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html

For you, I would say it should be mandatory reading.

~Raithere