|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 29 2019 04:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 04:30 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 04:20 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 04:01 Doodsmack wrote:On June 29 2019 03:09 IgnE wrote:
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return. I dont see any logic here that dictates that multiculturalism is a problem or is not feasible. It very much exists in the cities already. That is, once people are actually put in close proximity, they realize that their hunter-gatherer tribe instincts are not inexorable. and have you found a lot of multiculturalism out there that isn’t “western”? Would the Indian subcontinent qualify? They have a bajillion cultures. i don’t know you tell me. is a rigid caste system and millennia of sectarian violence a good kind of multiculturalism? as a british person you should be the first to point out that the very idea of “India” was forged in the crucible of western colonialism, and that even it wasn’t multicultural enough to keep the hindus and the muslims from killing each other
This should really needn't be said.
Culture is not the same thing as a nation.
|
The underlying premise is the unknowable for which the west makes the self-interested assumption that without it, the things we like "housing, reliable food source, drinkable water, multiculturalism etc..." couldn't have developed.
Generally a snapshot of time painted by a heavily self-justifying group is used to further this framing. Additionally or alternatively failures of nations heavily shaped historically and contemporarily by the west are framed as being that way despite western efforts rather than as a result.
|
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today.
|
On June 29 2019 06:21 Dan HH wrote:
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today.
Well xDaunt said it pretty explicitly
On June 29 2019 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 01:09 IgnE wrote:On June 28 2019 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 23:21 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:58 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2019 22:04 Nebuchad wrote:
I am a bit too much online and "European" pretty much means "White" to me. And not in the harmless way. Outside of this forum I don't even use "white" any more, I use colonizer, settler, European, etc.. If white people born in America are colonizers then so are African Americans. Neither chose the place of their birth. It's people like me who leave Europe that you need to watch out for. Stolen people on stolen land is the phrasing I would use. There is a large contingent of Black people in the US that have adopted colonial ideologies though, skin color (or even the treatment that comes with it) isn't an inoculation to colonial ideologies. If it is possible for land to have an owner then who but the people who were born on the land and make use of it could possibly be that owner? Migration is a part of human society. The children of the migrants are no less entitled than the children of the other migrants who came a bit earlier. Historical ownership of wealth is a bit more tricky because the crimes of the father enrich the son. But as for the land itself, we all own it, or none of us do. We all own it, or none of us do, would be acceptable. Issue is, colonizers insist they own it, and no one else. The capitalists insist that only those with a deed own it, and that deed is traced back to the original crime. I’d be fine with the “colonizers” saying that the land belongs to all colonizers because that’s all of us. The problem here is dead people seizing the means of production from the people who generated the wealth and then granting their kids an exclusive right to it. You’re as much a colonizer of the US as any other born here. Indigenous people didn't replace anyone, so no they are not colonizers. The descendants of stolen people are not colonizers in the sense that decedents of the thieves are simply because we both reside here. But it's true that any just outcome requires amiable resolution with indigenous peoples that could include Black people leaving too. Were we to stay despite the protest of indigenous peoples you're right that we'd be no different (with consideration for circumstances) than descendants of Europeans colonialists. We think we could come to terms though, around the mutual expulsion of colonialists. You're right imo that as a recent immigrant your reluctant embrace of colonialism is different (and potentially more hazardous) than either. On June 28 2019 23:42 Sent. wrote:On June 28 2019 23:08 JimmiC wrote:
In many places in Canada we make a Aknowledgement Statement to recognize that we are residing on aboriginal land. The loval governments worked with the Elders in Open Call events and Round Table Discussions and was vetted through the Reconciliation Commitee's.
There is a short and long form, here is an example of the short "I would like to acknowledge that we are on
Blackfoot land and would like to give recognition to the Blackfoot people past, present and future."
And the long "The City of acknowledges that we
are gathered on the lands of the Blackfoot
people of the Canadian Plains and pays respect
to the Blackfoot people past, present and
future while recognizing and respecting their
cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship to the
land. The City of is also home to
the Metis Nation of Alberta, Region III."
I bring this up as the name does not matter so much it is the actions you take, and more than that the intention behind the actions you take. It is not calling it America that causes any issues, it is how the people that live their act and their intentions that does. I understand the intention, but isn't such acknowledgement a bigger insult to the descendants of former inhabitants of the area than saying it used to be controlled by tribe X before it was taken by Europeans? You're basically telling them the land is still theirs without doing anything about it. If it's really theirs, why don't "you" give it back? In the US we're trained to see meaningless acknowledgements as significant progress. “indigenous people didn’t replace anyone” says who? if you are familiar at all with the well-documented ancient histories of Eurasian migrations and (re)settlements you should be skeptical that indigenous American cultures going back thousands of years were irenic Ur-peoples sprung from the earth. even a basic familiarity with Aztec peoples should disabuse you of that notion. personally i think the unwarranted extension and reflexive application of “colonizer” and other aspects of postcolonial theory is some of the most uncritical, unhelpful thinking to emerge in recent popular leftism. The critical weak link in leftist anti-American theories -- whether it be this colonialism nonsense or the argument that America is foundationally evil because it legalized slavery on its founding -- is their complete lack of historical perspective. Human history is a history of warfare and cultural/national genocide. Multiculturalism as a value has been around for roughly 2 minutes, and it is only valued in some segments of the Western world. The biggest irony is that these leftists fail to understand that the Western order that they seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place. It's all quite insane.
Then IgnE and Kwark picked it up the argument from there.
|
The Nazi that ran over people in Charlottesville Virginia is getting life in prison with no parole, good riddance.
|
On June 29 2019 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
The underlying premise is the unknowable for which the west makes the self-interested assumption that without it, the things we like "housing, reliable food source, drinkable water, multiculturalism etc..." couldn't have developed.
Generally a snapshot of time painted by a heavily self-justifying group is used to further this framing. Additionally or alternatively failures of nations heavily shaped historically and contemporarily by the west are framed as being that way despite western efforts rather than as a result.
I feel like people have been living in some sort of domicile, eating reliably from nature, and drinking clean water, far longer than your concept of "the west" has been established.
And before "the west", medicine was pretty advanced in parts of the southern continent below the middle continent we inhabit and in parts of Asian or that country way to the east or west, depending on your orientation.
|
On June 29 2019 06:21 Dan HH wrote:
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today.
let’s see how many different things we can mean by multiculturalism so we can count the number of different conversations we are having. i’ll start. multiculturalism is having more than one culture subject to one sovereign
|
On June 29 2019 06:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 06:21 Dan HH wrote:
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today. let’s see how many different things we can mean by multiculturalism so we can count the number of different conversations we are having. i’ll start. multiculturalism is having more than one culture subject to one sovereign
#2 A mix of distinct cultures living among one another.
|
On June 29 2019 06:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 06:21 Dan HH wrote:
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today. let’s see how many different things we can mean by multiculturalism so we can count the number of different conversations we are having. i’ll start. multiculturalism is having more than one culture subject to one sovereign
Ok, which version of multiculturalism is strictly western?
|
On June 29 2019 06:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 06:21 Dan HH wrote:
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today. let’s see how many different things we can mean by multiculturalism so we can count the number of different conversations we are having. i’ll start. multiculturalism is having more than one culture subject to one sovereign
Ugh, Igne. Why are you leading them down this path to semantic oblivion? You know damned well what I was talking about.
For the rest of you, go back read my post again. The specific phrase that I used was "multiculturalism as a value." That is a very distinct concept from multiculturalism as a state of being.
|
On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 06:58 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 06:21 Dan HH wrote:
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today. let’s see how many different things we can mean by multiculturalism so we can count the number of different conversations we are having. i’ll start. multiculturalism is having more than one culture subject to one sovereign Ugh, Igne. Why are you leading them down this path to semantic oblivion? You know damned well what I was talking about. For the rest of you, go back read my post again. The specific phrase that I used was "multiculturalism as a value." That is a very distinct concept from multiculturalism as a state of being.
I understood what you mean. I like this though, just because it helps people not be confused.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 06:58 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 06:21 Dan HH wrote:
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today. let’s see how many different things we can mean by multiculturalism so we can count the number of different conversations we are having. i’ll start. multiculturalism is having more than one culture subject to one sovereign Ugh, Igne. Why are you leading them down this path to semantic oblivion? You know damned well what I was talking about. For the rest of you, go back read my post again. The specific phrase that I used was "multiculturalism as a value." That is a very distinct concept from multiculturalism as a state of being.
When you have multiculturalism as a state of being but not also as a value isn’t that called apartheid?
|
|
|
On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 06:58 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 06:21 Dan HH wrote:
Who is claiming multiculturalism is western? Where have you encountered this idea? Every empire that ever existed was multicultural. The tribes Genghis Khan united were of different ethnicities and cultures that are still distinct peoples today. let’s see how many different things we can mean by multiculturalism so we can count the number of different conversations we are having. i’ll start. multiculturalism is having more than one culture subject to one sovereign Ugh, Igne. Why are you leading them down this path to semantic oblivion? You know damned well what I was talking about. For the rest of you, go back read my post again. The specific phrase that I used was "multiculturalism as a value." That is a very distinct concept from multiculturalism as a state of being.
i didn’t lead them there. that’s just where they tend to go
|
seems fairly trivial to state something isn’t valued until it’s valued.
|
On June 29 2019 07:41 JimmiC wrote:
Its funny in Canadian middle school social studies we spend a lot of time talking about how Canada has a Multicultural approach and the States has a melting pot. We then go through all the differences and advantages/disadvantages.
While cultures in the States tend to blend and borrow from one another, there are still distinct cultures that don't allow any of that "commingling" nonsense. Like...skinheads/nazis/neonazis/alt-right etc. And some revolutionary minded folks.
|
I don't get it are we having a discussion on multiculturalism vs assimilation? IE cultures are separate but equal vs cultural appropriation is a problem.
|
On June 29 2019 11:57 Sermokala wrote:
I don't get it are we having a discussion on multiculturalism vs assimilation? IE cultures are separate but equal vs cultural appropriation is a problem.
Someone posited that multicultural is one culture being submissive to another, therefore giving up their identity. And some are prescribing that multicultural is a "western" invention because it suits them for it to be so and that we should be grateful for "western" conquests to spread their benevolence.
|
It's always dangerous to claim a virtue based on being historically first. I think Western ideals are probably the best basis for society that we have yet discovered, but we don't have to pretend to have invented something to own it. Apple didn't invent touchscreen phones, they just made them work.
On this specific issue, most empires are multicultural by sheer necessity, as others have said. They differ in the extent that they encouraged versus tolerated their various subcultures, but several might even pass by today's standards. The Mongols in particular made a point of religious freedom and integrating aspects of the subject cultures into their court, often while committing mass genocide against members of those cultures that were still resisting.
Specifically as a value? Well, maybe, but which bits of these highly stratified historical societies would we look at to define values in comparison? I just don't see what the claim adds.
|
Just because something enabled us to survive or get to this point does not make it inherently virtuous, or something that should be repeated. For instance, just because we've gotten this far off the back of fossil fuels does not mean it's a good idea to plan on using them in perpetuity. Just because our species only made it as far as we have because of the nomadic lifestyle of the paleolithic era, doesn't mean we need to go back to a hunter-gatherer structure. This is one more idea that falls apart under simple scrutiny. Just because this country was founded by slave owners does not mean we need to go back to doing the slave thing. There's usually pretty good reasons why we stopped doing the thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
