|
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 30 2019 07:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 07:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2019 07:46 KwarK wrote:
I trust you’ll be equally sympathetic when the flat earthers take over and insist that they had to mobilize due to the scorn of the ivory tower globist elites. This comment is functionally meaningless. Do you have an actual point to add with this or...? The South gets shit on for being the way they choose to be. The problem isn’t that they’ve banded together to protest people calling them racists, it’s that they’re racists. We need less tolerance, not more. We don’t need to be more inclusive towards them so they don’t feel so alienated, we need them to stop deliberately choosing to be aliens. Exactly. People make fun of Alabama not because they're prejudiced against Alabama, but because of the things Alabamans and those who they choose to represent have done. Nobody forced nearly 50% of Alabaman voters to vote for a known paedophile over a different candidate in the special election for Sessions' senate seat. Those people chose to vote for Moore. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and said "You must vote for Roy Moore". People voluntarily went to the polls and voted for a man known for trying to take underage girls on "dates".
At the same time though, that special election resulting in Roy Moore losing helped show that there are a lot of good people with a conscience in the south, and they need all the support they can get. The problem is that they share a state with people who not only act against their own best interest, but are not informed enough to see why they are acting against their own best interest. Mix in some openly racist people, and suddenly it becomes much easier to see the bad than the good and people become concerned that supporting these states in any way makes it look as though one is tacitly supporting the racist, bigoted, and otherwise harmful beliefs a portion of people in these states have. In not supporting these states, of course, they are actually making the problem worse because there are fewer opportunities for these people to learn about anything outside their bubble or see that they could be wrong about something. The Affordable Care Act is a good example of this. It polled horribly among Republicans for years, and now it has broad support among Republicans because they have seen that, while it isn't perfect, the ACA has helped out a lot of people around them and allowed a lot of folks who previously were unable to get health insurance to become insured. If we can get through the Fox News/talk radio/Facebook bubble these people are trapped in, there's a good chance that a portion of them could be reached and likely would change their views when confronted with new information.
There's a reason Republicans do everything in their power to make voting more difficult, misinform voters, and discourage minorities from voting. They know they can't win a fair fight on policy because their policies are garbage. It's the same reason why conservative political parties focus on attack ads, fear mongering and smearing opponents rather than policy. They know they can't win otherwise and that if their supporters found out the truth, a good chunk would suddenly no longer be supporters.
|
On June 30 2019 09:24 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote: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. What do you mean by 'Multiculturalism as a value' though? More precisely, what lens do you expect history to be judged to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a happy accident as opposed to an intentional state of affairs considered desirable? You know, just to avoid you leaning on the rail of semantics yourself, as you're fond of doing.
What I mean by "multiculturalism as a value" is the idea that multiculturalism is something that is to be desired and valued in a society. And I'm not just talking about how it's nice to have Chinese food, Indian food, and Mexican food available in town. What I'm describing is this newer idea that preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society is a good thing. Hell, the philosophic basis for this line of thinking didn't even show up until 200 years ago, and it certainly is a far cry from Aristotle's conception of the polis.
|
On June 30 2019 05:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 03:59 Starlightsun wrote:On June 30 2019 03:46 farvacola wrote:
I just made the mistake of perusing the various Facebook pages of Sons of Confederate Veterans chapters and man, there is some really depressing stuff there. Lots of defiant ignorance as a virtue performances, especially in the vein of The War of Northern Aggression and The Lost Cause. I think if history were taught properly it would cut down on that a lot. On some level though I can understand the South struggling to salvage its pride and identity after the devastation of the civil war. Trying to frame it heroically with historical revisionism is I guess easier than looking at it as unmitigated tragedy and loss. I guess there's less excuse the more generations we are from it though. I wonder how many of the modern pro Confederates actually harbor the belief that black people are no better than livestock. I think it's pretty easy to see how a lot of conservative movements, particularly in the South, are reactionary. To be fair, we say basically nothing positive about Southern culture, since it's the embodiment of both American culture that is ridiculed by everyone (consumerism, unhealthy lifestyles, ignorance, etc.) plus the added weight of the worst historical aspects of racism and other bigotry in our country. We basically tell the South that it's a complete shit hole (in more diplomatic terms) while saying little to nothing positive about it or its culture. Meanwhile we try to extol the virtues of multiculturalism and tolerance of other cultures from other countries that normalize blatant authoritarianism and sexism (many Muslim countries) or corruption, raping women, and religious discrimination (e.g. India, southeast Asia). Now don't get me wrong, I think the South is a shit hole and you couldn't pay me enough money to live there permanently, but I can at least sympathize a little bit.
What you said isn't true, you are speaking in massive inaccurate generalities. Your statement is conjecture.
Speak for yourself, not me. I don't think there is anything wrong with the south.
In regard to the past of (all of ) America, unlike Germany, many people in America refuse to learn from (or acknowledge) the shadow of our past.
|
Norway28630 Posts
On June 30 2019 13:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 09:24 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote: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. What do you mean by 'Multiculturalism as a value' though? More precisely, what lens do you expect history to be judged to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a happy accident as opposed to an intentional state of affairs considered desirable? You know, just to avoid you leaning on the rail of semantics yourself, as you're fond of doing. What I mean by "multiculturalism as a value" is the idea that multiculturalism is something that is to be desired and valued in a society. And I'm not just talking about how it's nice to have Chinese food, Indian food, and Mexican food available in town. What I'm describing is this newer idea that preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society is a good thing. Hell, the philosophic basis for this line of thinking didn't even show up until 200 years ago, and it certainly is a far cry from Aristotle's conception of the polis.
Cicero, to my knowledge, is basically the inventor of the word culture, and he writes about how the roman culture is made stronger/better from adopting more elements from greek culture. I'll admit that I'm not a scholar on roman history but it is certainly my impression that 1: roman society qualified as a multicultural society and 2: there are some preserved contemporary voices that speak positively on the influence other cultures have on roman society and 3: they did not merely allow other cultures to coexist, but actively implemented elements from other cultures that they saw as particularly desirable, especially from the greeks, to improve upon their own.
|
On June 30 2019 13:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 09:24 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote: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. What do you mean by 'Multiculturalism as a value' though? More precisely, what lens do you expect history to be judged to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a happy accident as opposed to an intentional state of affairs considered desirable? You know, just to avoid you leaning on the rail of semantics yourself, as you're fond of doing. What I mean by "multiculturalism as a value" is the idea that multiculturalism is something that is to be desired and valued in a society. And I'm not just talking about how it's nice to have Chinese food, Indian food, and Mexican food available in town. What I'm describing is this newer idea that preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society is a good thing. Hell, the philosophic basis for this line of thinking didn't even show up until 200 years ago, and it certainly is a far cry from Aristotle's conception of the polis.
Hmm. I see what you mean, but I think the only way it holds up to scrutiny is a massive reliance on semantics and a narrow definition rooted in modern politics.
Both the Chinese and Roman Empires - for two at different ends of the world - were heavily multicultural and valued being so, and their strength lay in that multiculturalism (people don't think of 'China' as multicultural, but it sure was 2000 years ago just because of the sheer size of the place). There's also the early Russian Empires, which were incredibly multicultural by the standards of the time, as they did almost nothing to suppress local cultures that they'd absorbed into the Empire. There's evidence the Persian Empire was, too, but I don't know too much about them.
|
On June 30 2019 13:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 09:24 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote: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. What do you mean by 'Multiculturalism as a value' though? More precisely, what lens do you expect history to be judged to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a happy accident as opposed to an intentional state of affairs considered desirable? You know, just to avoid you leaning on the rail of semantics yourself, as you're fond of doing. What I mean by "multiculturalism as a value" is the idea that multiculturalism is something that is to be desired and valued in a society. And I'm not just talking about how it's nice to have Chinese food, Indian food, and Mexican food available in town. What I'm describing is this newer idea that preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society is a good thing. Hell, the philosophic basis for this line of thinking didn't even show up until 200 years ago, and it certainly is a far cry from Aristotle's conception of the polis.
That's just your own personal definition of what you think the value of multiculturalism is. There is no reasoning for anybody to subscribe to what you think "multiculturalism as a value" is as you don't see "multiculturalism" as a valuable. Multiculturalism isn't about preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society. It's about not forcing people to live in ghettos, behind barbed wire and checkpoints, different buses, different shops, different pubs, different schools. The value is in the absence of concentration camps. It's about not amount overt racist sentiments, or how a nation must be purged of an other. It's about not segregating people in a nation based on race and religion and to unite them in service and harmony of a nation.
|
On June 30 2019 16:13 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 05:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 30 2019 03:59 Starlightsun wrote:On June 30 2019 03:46 farvacola wrote:
I just made the mistake of perusing the various Facebook pages of Sons of Confederate Veterans chapters and man, there is some really depressing stuff there. Lots of defiant ignorance as a virtue performances, especially in the vein of The War of Northern Aggression and The Lost Cause. I think if history were taught properly it would cut down on that a lot. On some level though I can understand the South struggling to salvage its pride and identity after the devastation of the civil war. Trying to frame it heroically with historical revisionism is I guess easier than looking at it as unmitigated tragedy and loss. I guess there's less excuse the more generations we are from it though. I wonder how many of the modern pro Confederates actually harbor the belief that black people are no better than livestock. I think it's pretty easy to see how a lot of conservative movements, particularly in the South, are reactionary. To be fair, we say basically nothing positive about Southern culture, since it's the embodiment of both American culture that is ridiculed by everyone (consumerism, unhealthy lifestyles, ignorance, etc.) plus the added weight of the worst historical aspects of racism and other bigotry in our country. We basically tell the South that it's a complete shit hole (in more diplomatic terms) while saying little to nothing positive about it or its culture. Meanwhile we try to extol the virtues of multiculturalism and tolerance of other cultures from other countries that normalize blatant authoritarianism and sexism (many Muslim countries) or corruption, raping women, and religious discrimination (e.g. India, southeast Asia). Now don't get me wrong, I think the South is a shit hole and you couldn't pay me enough money to live there permanently, but I can at least sympathize a little bit. What you said isn't true, you are speaking in massive inaccurate generalities. Your statement is conjecture. Speak for yourself, not me. I don't think there is anything wrong with the south. In regard to the past of (all of ) America, unlike Germany, many people in America refuse to learn from (or acknowledge) the shadow of our past.
You can feel all smug saying "well not me", but this is just like a wide guy shrugging and saying, "well I'm not sexist".
I could link you endless pages of articles, blogs, videos, and forum discussions criticizing American culture, Southern culture, and rural culture. It's so common that it should speak for itself. I'll wait for you to show me where progressive social media highlights the positive qualities of any of those.
|
There's also the problem of the largely blind eye progressives or the "US left" turn to racism (sexism, bigotry, etc...) among their own ranks besides the mostly accurate negative depictions of the South.
|
On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 13:55 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2019 09:24 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote: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. What do you mean by 'Multiculturalism as a value' though? More precisely, what lens do you expect history to be judged to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a happy accident as opposed to an intentional state of affairs considered desirable? You know, just to avoid you leaning on the rail of semantics yourself, as you're fond of doing. What I mean by "multiculturalism as a value" is the idea that multiculturalism is something that is to be desired and valued in a society. And I'm not just talking about how it's nice to have Chinese food, Indian food, and Mexican food available in town. What I'm describing is this newer idea that preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society is a good thing. Hell, the philosophic basis for this line of thinking didn't even show up until 200 years ago, and it certainly is a far cry from Aristotle's conception of the polis. Cicero, to my knowledge, is basically the inventor of the word culture, and he writes about how the roman culture is made stronger/better from adopting more elements from greek culture. I'll admit that I'm not a scholar on roman history but it is certainly my impression that 1: roman society qualified as a multicultural society and 2: there are some preserved contemporary voices that speak positively on the influence other cultures have on roman society and 3: they did not merely allow other cultures to coexist, but actively implemented elements from other cultures that they saw as particularly desirable, especially from the greeks, to improve upon their own.
I was going to make a point similar to this in that Romans, Mongols, and any Dark Ages era European tribe that benefited from Roman structures/paved roads in their territory benefited from a culture separate to their own, but in xDaunt's defense this is not what he's talking about. xDaunt didn't say anything about the concept of another culture having something valuable; he's referring to the idea of cultures having value in and of themselves. Romans didn't care about the Greek culture because they were Greek, they cared because they saw the value in their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have wiped out the Britons (among others). Mongols didn't care about the Chinese culture because they were Chinese, they cared because they saw the value in...their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in mass genocide against the other tribes/sub-cultures that resisted them.
Also I just have to comment on the exchange between GH, IgnE, and KwarK a few pages ago, because the breakdown in communication is frustrating and I wanted to see that discussion continue. Here's a loose interpretation of how I saw the conversation...
GH: The West is bad because it was founded on exploitation and human suffering. A multiculturalism not founded on those things is better.
KwarK: True about the founding on exploitation part, but we can separate ourselves from that and still maintain the benefits.
GH: No we can't.
KwarK: Yes we can.
IgnE: The West can't be ALL bad right? Because every single one of us is essentially descended from it, you wouldn't even be able to have this conversation if it wasn't for "The West". Your "multiculturalism not founded on those things" doesn't exist to compare to "The West".
Doodsmack: Yes it does.
IgnE: Fine, give me an example of another multiculturalism that isn't "western" [and not based on exploitation and human suffering].
KwarK: India?
IgnE: Uhh..exploitation and human suffering with caste systems and sectarian violence?
KwarK: It's still multiculturalism.
*insert further breakdown in communication*
FWIW, pretty sure IgnE's ultimate point is that all nations and megacultures ("the West", "the East", etc.) have some history of exploitation and human suffering if you look back far enough, which means there is no historical precedent for an exemplar of a "good" megaculture that GH describes, which further means that any comparisons between the two are theoretical and not practical. Further, that saying "the West" is bad compared to this exemplar is akin to saying Mother Teresa is bad because it is possible to conceive of someone doing more good than her, and she wasn't that person.
|
On June 30 2019 22:06 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 30 2019 13:55 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2019 09:24 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote: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. What do you mean by 'Multiculturalism as a value' though? More precisely, what lens do you expect history to be judged to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a happy accident as opposed to an intentional state of affairs considered desirable? You know, just to avoid you leaning on the rail of semantics yourself, as you're fond of doing. What I mean by "multiculturalism as a value" is the idea that multiculturalism is something that is to be desired and valued in a society. And I'm not just talking about how it's nice to have Chinese food, Indian food, and Mexican food available in town. What I'm describing is this newer idea that preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society is a good thing. Hell, the philosophic basis for this line of thinking didn't even show up until 200 years ago, and it certainly is a far cry from Aristotle's conception of the polis. Cicero, to my knowledge, is basically the inventor of the word culture, and he writes about how the roman culture is made stronger/better from adopting more elements from greek culture. I'll admit that I'm not a scholar on roman history but it is certainly my impression that 1: roman society qualified as a multicultural society and 2: there are some preserved contemporary voices that speak positively on the influence other cultures have on roman society and 3: they did not merely allow other cultures to coexist, but actively implemented elements from other cultures that they saw as particularly desirable, especially from the greeks, to improve upon their own. I was going to make a point similar to this in that Romans, Mongols, and any Dark Ages era European tribe that benefited from Roman structures/paved roads in their territory benefited from a culture separate to their own, but in xDaunt's defense this is not what he's talking about. xDaunt didn't say anything about the concept of another culture having something valuable; he's referring to the idea of cultures having value in and of themselves. Romans didn't care about the Greek culture because they were Greek, they cared because they saw the value in their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have wiped out the Britons (among others). Mongols didn't care about the Chinese culture because they were Chinese, they cared because they saw the value in...their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in mass genocide against the other tribes/sub-cultures that resisted them. Also I just have to comment on the exchange between GH, IgnE, and KwarK a few pages ago, because the breakdown in communication is frustrating and I wanted to see that discussion continue. Here's a loose interpretation of how I saw the conversation... GH: The West is bad because it was founded on exploitation and human suffering. A multiculturalism not founded on those things is better. KwarK: True about the founding on exploitation part, but we can separate ourselves from that and still maintain the benefits. GH: No we can't. KwarK: Yes we can. IgnE: The West can't be ALL bad right? Because every single one of us is essentially descended from it, you wouldn't even be able to have this conversation if it wasn't for "The West". Your "multiculturalism not founded on those things" doesn't exist to compare to "The West". Doodsmack: Yes it does. IgnE: Fine, give me an example of another multiculturalism that isn't "western" [and not based on exploitation and human suffering]. KwarK: India? IgnE: Uhh..exploitation and human suffering with caste systems and sectarian violence? KwarK: It's still multiculturalism. *insert further breakdown in communication* FWIW, pretty sure IgnE's ultimate point is that all nations and megacultures ("the West", "the East", etc.) have some history of exploitation and human suffering if you look back far enough, which means there is no historical precedent for an exemplar of a "good" megaculture that GH describes, which further means that any comparisons between the two are theoretical and not practical.
To the point of extricating the benefits from the exploitation, I don't deny it's theoretical possibility, merely noting that it's important to point out it's a post ecological collapse scenario Kwark's hypothesizing.
As to the point on a "good megaculture" both Kwark and I are imagining, it's something to be created, not something to be remade from history. It's also something "western culture", as xDaunt sees it, is incompatible with (as opposed to it's progenitor) imo.
|
Trump went into North Korea and I can't get over their guards. It looks like the NK guy is saying over the radio "we could take these Pillsbury punks right here" and the US SS looks sketched out as all hell.
|
On June 30 2019 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Trump went into North Korea and I can't get over their guards. It looks like the NK guy is saying over the radio "we could take these Pillsbury punks right here" and the US SS looks sketched out as all hell. https://twitter.com/willripleyCNN/status/1145218939380588544
Would be quite the plot twist for 2019 if Jong Un managed to knock out the secret service and take Trump hostage in North Korea
And how much would the US do to get Trump back?
|
On June 30 2019 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Trump went into North Korea and I can't get over their guards. It looks like the NK guy is saying over the radio "we could take these Pillsbury punks right here" and the US SS looks sketched out as all hell. https://twitter.com/willripleyCNN/status/1145218939380588544
He's even doing the martial arts nose flick. Not shown: Him dropping into Tae Kwon Do stance right afterwards.
|
On June 30 2019 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 22:06 Ryzel wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 30 2019 13:55 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2019 09:24 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote: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. What do you mean by 'Multiculturalism as a value' though? More precisely, what lens do you expect history to be judged to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a happy accident as opposed to an intentional state of affairs considered desirable? You know, just to avoid you leaning on the rail of semantics yourself, as you're fond of doing. What I mean by "multiculturalism as a value" is the idea that multiculturalism is something that is to be desired and valued in a society. And I'm not just talking about how it's nice to have Chinese food, Indian food, and Mexican food available in town. What I'm describing is this newer idea that preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society is a good thing. Hell, the philosophic basis for this line of thinking didn't even show up until 200 years ago, and it certainly is a far cry from Aristotle's conception of the polis. Cicero, to my knowledge, is basically the inventor of the word culture, and he writes about how the roman culture is made stronger/better from adopting more elements from greek culture. I'll admit that I'm not a scholar on roman history but it is certainly my impression that 1: roman society qualified as a multicultural society and 2: there are some preserved contemporary voices that speak positively on the influence other cultures have on roman society and 3: they did not merely allow other cultures to coexist, but actively implemented elements from other cultures that they saw as particularly desirable, especially from the greeks, to improve upon their own. I was going to make a point similar to this in that Romans, Mongols, and any Dark Ages era European tribe that benefited from Roman structures/paved roads in their territory benefited from a culture separate to their own, but in xDaunt's defense this is not what he's talking about. xDaunt didn't say anything about the concept of another culture having something valuable; he's referring to the idea of cultures having value in and of themselves. Romans didn't care about the Greek culture because they were Greek, they cared because they saw the value in their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have wiped out the Britons (among others). Mongols didn't care about the Chinese culture because they were Chinese, they cared because they saw the value in...their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in mass genocide against the other tribes/sub-cultures that resisted them. Also I just have to comment on the exchange between GH, IgnE, and KwarK a few pages ago, because the breakdown in communication is frustrating and I wanted to see that discussion continue. Here's a loose interpretation of how I saw the conversation... GH: The West is bad because it was founded on exploitation and human suffering. A multiculturalism not founded on those things is better. KwarK: True about the founding on exploitation part, but we can separate ourselves from that and still maintain the benefits. GH: No we can't. KwarK: Yes we can. IgnE: The West can't be ALL bad right? Because every single one of us is essentially descended from it, you wouldn't even be able to have this conversation if it wasn't for "The West". Your "multiculturalism not founded on those things" doesn't exist to compare to "The West". Doodsmack: Yes it does. IgnE: Fine, give me an example of another multiculturalism that isn't "western" [and not based on exploitation and human suffering]. KwarK: India? IgnE: Uhh..exploitation and human suffering with caste systems and sectarian violence? KwarK: It's still multiculturalism. *insert further breakdown in communication* FWIW, pretty sure IgnE's ultimate point is that all nations and megacultures ("the West", "the East", etc.) have some history of exploitation and human suffering if you look back far enough, which means there is no historical precedent for an exemplar of a "good" megaculture that GH describes, which further means that any comparisons between the two are theoretical and not practical. To the point of extricating the benefits from the exploitation, I don't deny it's theoretical possibility, merely noting that it's important to point out it's a post ecological collapse scenario Kwark's hypothesizing. As to the point on a "good megaculture" both Kwark and I are imagining, it's something to be created, not something to be remade from history. It's also something "western culture", as xDaunt sees it, is incompatible with (as opposed to it's progenitor) imo.
Ah, gotcha. I agree it’s worth pursuing and thinking about, but I do think that while creating theoretical exemplars are one thing, figuring out how to have that theoretical exemplar supplant the existing megaculture without exploitation and human suffering, especially in a post-ecological-apocalypse scenario, will be quite another.
|
Norway28630 Posts
The point that 'cultures having intrinsic value' being a more recent western ideal might well be true, I don't know enough to prove the statement wrong, at least.
|
On June 30 2019 22:56 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Would be quite the plot twist for 2019 if Jong Un managed to knock out the secret service and take Trump hostage in North Korea And how much would the US do to get Trump back?
We'd probably nuke the place on principle. He would just be collateral.
|
On June 30 2019 22:06 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 30 2019 13:55 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2019 09:24 iamthedave wrote:On June 29 2019 07:12 xDaunt wrote: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. What do you mean by 'Multiculturalism as a value' though? More precisely, what lens do you expect history to be judged to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is a happy accident as opposed to an intentional state of affairs considered desirable? You know, just to avoid you leaning on the rail of semantics yourself, as you're fond of doing. What I mean by "multiculturalism as a value" is the idea that multiculturalism is something that is to be desired and valued in a society. And I'm not just talking about how it's nice to have Chinese food, Indian food, and Mexican food available in town. What I'm describing is this newer idea that preserving cultural identities of distinct groups of people within a larger society is a good thing. Hell, the philosophic basis for this line of thinking didn't even show up until 200 years ago, and it certainly is a far cry from Aristotle's conception of the polis. Cicero, to my knowledge, is basically the inventor of the word culture, and he writes about how the roman culture is made stronger/better from adopting more elements from greek culture. I'll admit that I'm not a scholar on roman history but it is certainly my impression that 1: roman society qualified as a multicultural society and 2: there are some preserved contemporary voices that speak positively on the influence other cultures have on roman society and 3: they did not merely allow other cultures to coexist, but actively implemented elements from other cultures that they saw as particularly desirable, especially from the greeks, to improve upon their own. I was going to make a point similar to this in that Romans, Mongols, and any Dark Ages era European tribe that benefited from Roman structures/paved roads in their territory benefited from a culture separate to their own, but in xDaunt's defense this is not what he's talking about. xDaunt didn't say anything about the concept of another culture having something valuable; he's referring to the idea of cultures having value in and of themselves. Romans didn't care about the Greek culture because they were Greek, they cared because they saw the value in their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have wiped out the Britons (among others). Mongols didn't care about the Chinese culture because they were Chinese, they cared because they saw the value in...their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in mass genocide against the other tribes/sub-cultures that resisted them. Also I just have to comment on the exchange between GH, IgnE, and KwarK a few pages ago, because the breakdown in communication is frustrating and I wanted to see that discussion continue. Here's a loose interpretation of how I saw the conversation... GH: The West is bad because it was founded on exploitation and human suffering. A multiculturalism not founded on those things is better. KwarK: True about the founding on exploitation part, but we can separate ourselves from that and still maintain the benefits. GH: No we can't. KwarK: Yes we can. IgnE: The West can't be ALL bad right? Because every single one of us is essentially descended from it, you wouldn't even be able to have this conversation if it wasn't for "The West". Your "multiculturalism not founded on those things" doesn't exist to compare to "The West". Doodsmack: Yes it does. IgnE: Fine, give me an example of another multiculturalism that isn't "western" [and not based on exploitation and human suffering]. KwarK: India? IgnE: Uhh..exploitation and human suffering with caste systems and sectarian violence? KwarK: It's still multiculturalism. *insert further breakdown in communication* FWIW, pretty sure IgnE's ultimate point is that all nations and megacultures ("the West", "the East", etc.) have some history of exploitation and human suffering if you look back far enough, which means there is no historical precedent for an exemplar of a "good" megaculture that GH describes, which further means that any comparisons between the two are theoretical and not practical. Further, that saying "the West" is bad compared to this exemplar is akin to saying Mother Teresa is bad because it is possible to conceive of someone doing more good than her, and she wasn't that person.
Even so, the Russians, Chinese and Persians (maybe, because I do have knowledge gaps there) fit the definition of multiculturalism you're operating under.
The Russians were very noticeable in their original two Empires for not suppressing local cultures unless they actively resisted them, and then only because... well, they had to. They openly respected and, yes, saw value in, local cultures in the regions they brought into the Empire. They weren't taking culture and art from them, either, because a lot of them were exceptionally savage by the standards of the mainline Empire (which took most of its cues from France in particular). What possible other interpretation is there, then, other than respect for those local cultures? The Russian Empire could have suppressed them easily, they had a massive army with guns up against people who wouldn't have looked out of place in Lord of the Rings. Yet they chose not to.
The Chinese you can argue about since they were always striving towards a united identity, but the Chinese Empire consisted of tons of different cultures that existed within the same structure.
You know you're deep in the semantic well when you're splitting hairs between multiple historical multicultural empires that consisted of multiple cultures in order to determine which of the multiple empires consisting of multiple cultures is actually multicultural.
I'd say its fair to put the British Empire out of that definition because Britain was the thing and everyone else its servants. We absolutely did not respect local cultures. But there's no rational way to use the same brush for all of them, and especially to claim multiculturalism is a new idea. It may not have had the word to describe it and might not be openly discussed in the same terms, but it was a clear operating principle.
|
|
|
On June 30 2019 22:06 Ryzel wrote:
I was going to make a point similar to this in that Romans, Mongols, and any Dark Ages era European tribe that benefited from Roman structures/paved roads in their territory benefited from a culture separate to their own, but in xDaunt's defense this is not what he's talking about. xDaunt didn't say anything about the concept of another culture having something valuable; he's referring to the idea of cultures having value in and of themselves. Romans didn't care about the Greek culture because they were Greek, they cared because they saw the value in their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have wiped out the Britons (among others). Mongols didn't care about the Chinese culture because they were Chinese, they cared because they saw the value in...their society, academies, and political systems. Otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in mass genocide against the other tribes/sub-cultures that resisted them.
That's the thing though. Multiculturalism that xdaunts describes isn't about the concept of another culture having something valuable, insofar as he is just against the value of multiculturalism in general. The value of multiculturalism is in what multiculturalism as a minimum prevents. Multiculturalism means tolerance. It means that catholic churches and synogogues and mosques and buddhist temples or any other religious building can be built in the open legally. 500 years ago in prtestant countries you could not have catholic churches built in the open. It means that Blacks and Irish can go sit in pubs, and so can dogs. The value he attributes to multiculturalism is just a strawman of his own making so he can literally write some rubbish about the Western world, something about "these leftists"something about "Western order" and "seek to destroy is precisely what has enabled them to exist in the first place." I would ask for him to qualify any of those words, but he refuses to, or is incapable of enunciating as such in manner previous cases.
|
On June 30 2019 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Trump went into North Korea and I can't get over their guards. It looks like the NK guy is saying over the radio "we could take these Pillsbury punks right here" and the US SS looks sketched out as all hell. https://twitter.com/willripleyCNN/status/1145218939380588544
I found it strange that the NK Dictator was allowed to walk into SK with Trump rather than the other way around where the SK President walked into NK with Trump. That alone has to have some kind of value/meaning. Safety concerns was my best bet, but to a Dictator, it could mean a whole other thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
