|
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 23:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well he did clarify if you look at the post I responded to a bit above.
|
On June 30 2019 23:28 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
Well, in addition to the ROK being relegated to a usual backseat when it comes to the war issue, it was Trump's idea, this meeting, it was his "surprise" meet. Not Moon's, who visited Pyongyang before so I'm sure he would have been up for anything if they thought it was appropriate.
|
On July 01 2019 00:14 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 23:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Well he did clarify if you look at the post I responded to a bit above.
How about “diversity for its own sake is good”? I don’t think bare tolerance is what he is talking about, since the United States enshrined freedom of religion back in the 18th century.
|
On June 30 2019 23:04 iamthedave 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. 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.
Off the top of my head, easing the assimilation of recent conquests into their empire, reducing the risk of uprisings/rebellions, and basically saying to other cultures/nations "hey, just let us take you over and you'll get to carry on business as usual with some minor tweaks, otherwise it may be bad for you" to make it easier to take over. None of those involve respecting the culture involved.
Just to clarify a bit more, I'm referring to what both Drone and IgnE have touched on; culture and diversity having intrinsic value. For an empire/megaculture to demonstrate that they have this value, I would expect to see things like...
- State-funded museums dedicated to protecting/preserving aspects of many (preferably all) different cultures
- State-provided incentives for being in/practicing a specific culture that is facing extinction
- Absolutely no mass genocide of/stamping out any culture for any reason (as they are all meaningful)
- Policies that provide bonuses to entities that incorporate as many cultures as possible
- Policies that provide preferential treatment to any member of a culture not currently within the empire's/group's purview, to encourage as many cultures within the empire as possible
- Some sort of governing body that has one representative from every known culture in its purview that is responsible for some key policy decisions
...essentially any decision that involves an empire or entity going out of its way to include/bring in as many cultures as possible. To my knowledge, I don't think there's any nation or cultural group that does or has ever done all of these things (except perhaps LGBTQ). Sorry for the potentially confusing carryover between empires and megacultures, but I hope you all get what I mean.
|
On July 01 2019 00:50 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 00:14 iamthedave wrote:On June 30 2019 23:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Well he did clarify if you look at the post I responded to a bit above. How about “diversity for its own sake is good”? I don’t think bare tolerance is what he is talking about, since the United States enshrined freedom of religion back in the 18th century.
So is the posit that this is a brand new idea that has sprung up in the last century or so without any historical antecedent in the west or east?
|
On July 01 2019 02:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 00:50 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2019 00:14 iamthedave wrote:On June 30 2019 23:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Well he did clarify if you look at the post I responded to a bit above. How about “diversity for its own sake is good”? I don’t think bare tolerance is what he is talking about, since the United States enshrined freedom of religion back in the 18th century. So is the posit that this is a brand new idea that has sprung up in the last century or so without any historical antecedent in the west or east?
Yep. And it is a distinctly western idea born of, and extended from, 19th and 20th century thought.
|
United States15275 Posts
On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals.
|
On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals.
Exactly.
|
On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals.
If you've followed xDaunts arguments on "western culture" you'll fine it incompatible with the description of multiculturalism you provide there (which was one of my core points on the topic for those curious). This lack of clarity surrounding intended meanings of terms is what drew out IgnE's frustration iirc. On July 01 2019 04:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. Exactly.
Just to be clear, you're not arguing western culture is as valuable as other cultures though You're actually arguing in favor of a more Roman multiculturalism which sees western culture as superior, and therefor at worst, amoral when killing innocent people around the world to enforce/perpetuate it's values. Unless I've misinterpreted your argument somewhere?
|
On July 01 2019 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. If you've followed xDaunts arguments on "western culture" you'll fine it incompatible with the description of multiculturalism you provide there (which was one of my core points on the topic for those curious). This lack of clarity surrounding intended meanings of terms is what drew out IgnE's frustration iirc. Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. Exactly. Just to be clear, you're not arguing western culture is as valuable as other cultures though You're actually arguing in favor of a more Roman multiculturalism which sees western culture as superior, and therefor at worst, amoral when killing innocent people around the world to enforce/perpetuate it's values. Unless I've misinterpreted your argument somewhere?
I'm not arguing anything right now. I'm just pointing out what is. But it should be obvious from my prior posting that I reject the value relativism referenced by CosmicSpiral. Indeed, I consider most of the philosophy of the past 200 years from which value relativism is derived to be a mistake.
|
On July 01 2019 04:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. If you've followed xDaunts arguments on "western culture" you'll fine it incompatible with the description of multiculturalism you provide there (which was one of my core points on the topic for those curious). This lack of clarity surrounding intended meanings of terms is what drew out IgnE's frustration iirc. On July 01 2019 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. Exactly. Just to be clear, you're not arguing western culture is as valuable as other cultures though You're actually arguing in favor of a more Roman multiculturalism which sees western culture as superior, and therefor at worst, amoral when killing innocent people around the world to enforce/perpetuate it's values. Unless I've misinterpreted your argument somewhere? I'm not arguing anything right now. I'm just pointing out what is. But it should be obvious from my prior posting that I reject the value relativism referenced by CosmicSpiral. Indeed, I consider most of the philosophy of the past 200 years from which value relativism is derived to be a mistake.
What "is", at least as you see it, and why it's incompatible with 21st century knowledge is the argument I see whether you intend it or not.
So for those following along xDaunt is saying that multiculturalism as a value emerged quite recently in the west (and would be unlikely to arise otherwise) and is a mistake. Instead he advocates for cultural supremacy backed by amoral violence.
To clarify a bit, my point was that xDaunt's concept of idealized western culture and the recent multiculturalism as a valkue he describes are incompatible hence his description of " a mistake"
|
On July 01 2019 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2019 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. If you've followed xDaunts arguments on "western culture" you'll fine it incompatible with the description of multiculturalism you provide there (which was one of my core points on the topic for those curious). This lack of clarity surrounding intended meanings of terms is what drew out IgnE's frustration iirc. On July 01 2019 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. Exactly. Just to be clear, you're not arguing western culture is as valuable as other cultures though You're actually arguing in favor of a more Roman multiculturalism which sees western culture as superior, and therefor at worst, amoral when killing innocent people around the world to enforce/perpetuate it's values. Unless I've misinterpreted your argument somewhere? I'm not arguing anything right now. I'm just pointing out what is. But it should be obvious from my prior posting that I reject the value relativism referenced by CosmicSpiral. Indeed, I consider most of the philosophy of the past 200 years from which value relativism is derived to be a mistake. What "is", at least as you see it, and why it's incompatible with 21st century knowledge is the argument I see whether you intend it or not. So for those following along xDaunt is saying that multiculturalism as a value emerged quite recently in the west (and would be unlikely to arise otherwise) and is a mistake. Instead he advocates for cultural supremacy backed by amoral violence. To clarify a bit, my point was that xDaunt's concept of idealized western culture and the recent multiculturalism as a valkue he describes are incompatible hence his description of " a mistake"
Considering the difficulty that you’re having discerning whether I actually am making an argument, you may want to reconsider even attempting to summarize my position. Just a hint: you’re a bit off.
|
United States15275 Posts
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.
Hmmm, it's always a bit more complicated than mere utilitarianism.
The Romans saw the Greeks as distant relatives, or at least stemming from the same cultural traditions. Remember the founding myths popularized in order to build up the notion of Italy/Italians posited them as Trojan descendants, with the elites boasting bloodlines from Trojan royalty, so they inherited enlightened norms of antiquity that justified their conquests. The Greeks were also members of that same culture, inferior ones as a people but still members. It was largely the nobility that sought to learn Greek language, literature and philosophy. This indulgence by the upper class is a hallmark of cosmopolitan culture.
The primary reason Genghis Khan's main army and its auxiliaries engaged in mass genocide was pragmatic. Contra contemporary accounts he was a sadist, he simply lacked the tools to enact and secure control over conquered territories without dispersing his forces to the breaking point. His cavalry-based army required grasslands and flat terrain to operate efficiently (hence why he never conquered Southern China or India; meanwhile his descendants ran into severe problems in the Middle East and eastern Europe for several reasons). Nor was he keen on recruiting levies from the local population as they would have full knowledge of the local environment and weak loyalty to an absent conqueror. While Genghis occasionally left behind garrisons, it was more prudent. And he largely dealt the quietus to cities that recalcitrantly held out against prolonged sieges; his ambassadors usually offered terms of surrender prior to any real fighting in hopes capitulation would spare them the trouble.
For the same reason, he didn't slaughter everyone whom got in his way. Amassing such a gargantuan army from a hunter-gathered society left them ill-equipped to perform the basic functions of a sedentary civilization. They had little to no knowledge or interest in bureaucracy, administration, infrastructure, farming, engineering, so on and so forth. The Mongols didn't even have a unified language for communication until it was adapted from the Uighers. As they stormed through Asia and Central Asia, the Mongols usually employed the previous generation of aristocrats, government officials, artisans and other specialized classes to keep things running. And of course, most of them were awestruck by the great beauty and sophistication of these cities. It was often the case plundering a city entailed destroying basic housing and defenses while preserving everything else of value.
On June 30 2019 23:04 iamthedave wrote:
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.
The simplest, most straightforward reason the Russian Empire never suppressed minority groups was that the inorodtsy comprised such a minuscule portion of the population that it was a waste of time to undertake such an endeavor. Not to mention the empire was prohibitively enormous. Instead, the idea was to placate them with certain privileges that both quelled dissent and excluded them from influence.
It's hard to distinguish between states and cultures within the annals of Imperial China. Court records rarely frame the internecine warfare in terms of ethnic groups, largely because they didn't consider such differences to be of importance. As for "striving towards a unified identity", well not even the Chinese bought into that except in relation to outsiders.
Which Persians are we specifically referring to? The Achaemenid Empire?
On July 01 2019 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you've followed xDaunts arguments on "western culture" you'll fine it incompatible with the description of multiculturalism you provide there (which was one of my core points on the topic for those curious). This lack of clarity surrounding intended meanings of terms is what drew out IgnE's frustration iirc.
I've only read the last two pages. From what I've seen, all parties are in confusion as they are bouncing between different implications of the term, conflating it with cosmopolitanism in the social sense, or citing ancient cultures without being specific on what aspects were multicultural.
Multiculturalism in the sense of different cultures existing in proximity with each other in "harmony" has existed since antiquity, but the connotations are different from how we use it in the modern sense. The difference between a descriptive term and a laudatory one, so to speak.
|
On July 01 2019 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2019 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2019 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. If you've followed xDaunts arguments on "western culture" you'll fine it incompatible with the description of multiculturalism you provide there (which was one of my core points on the topic for those curious). This lack of clarity surrounding intended meanings of terms is what drew out IgnE's frustration iirc. On July 01 2019 04:14 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2019 04:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On June 30 2019 18:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. Drone, you are describing a variant of sociological cosmopolitianism (as distinct from the philosophical arguments advocated by Diogenes, Kant, and Derrida). This is not analogous to modern mulitculturalism. One of the central tenets of modern multiculturalism is value relativism; no culture can be heralded as better than another. The Romans certainly viewed themselves as both possessing a superior culture and the immanent right to foist it on other conquered societies. Popular attitudes towards different peoples varied - they were more amenable to the Greeks than the Jews - but they never considered even the most favored subjects as equals. Exactly. Just to be clear, you're not arguing western culture is as valuable as other cultures though You're actually arguing in favor of a more Roman multiculturalism which sees western culture as superior, and therefor at worst, amoral when killing innocent people around the world to enforce/perpetuate it's values. Unless I've misinterpreted your argument somewhere? I'm not arguing anything right now. I'm just pointing out what is. But it should be obvious from my prior posting that I reject the value relativism referenced by CosmicSpiral. Indeed, I consider most of the philosophy of the past 200 years from which value relativism is derived to be a mistake. What "is", at least as you see it, and why it's incompatible with 21st century knowledge is the argument I see whether you intend it or not. So for those following along xDaunt is saying that multiculturalism as a value emerged quite recently in the west (and would be unlikely to arise otherwise) and is a mistake. Instead he advocates for cultural supremacy backed by amoral violence. To clarify a bit, my point was that xDaunt's concept of idealized western culture and the recent multiculturalism as a valkue he describes are incompatible hence his description of " a mistake" Considering the difficulty that you’re having discerning whether I actually am making an argument, you may want to reconsider even attempting to summarize my position. Just a hint: you’re a bit off.
Lol I know what your saying, I'm just connecting it with your actual position on multiculturalism as a value.
It's part of why people are confused, because they didn't realize you were describing the "good multiculturalism" as a mistake and instead trying to focus on your assertion that it's genesis is in western culture (as an aberration). That you see "multiculturalism as a value" as a mistake is an important part of why people we're struggling to engage with what you were saying.
If there's something wrong with the summary I'll correct it.
|
On July 01 2019 00:14 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2019 23:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Well he did clarify if you look at the post I responded to a bit above.
Which he and what did he clarify. I don't see any reason to indulge in xdaunt's semantics when xdaunt refuse to discuss semantics, whilst at the same time providing his own lackluster semantics. xdaunt's " value of multiculturalism" which he sees has the "destruction" of "western order" and "western world", and ryzels tangent to that is not the same thing as your multiculturalism you are discussing with ryzel and others.
|
|
|
It is multiculturalism without the multi. Obvs.
Ugh, kollin. Why are you leading us 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 "culturalism as a value." That is a very distinct concept from culturalism as a state of being.
Don't worry, when asked to say this means, I wouldn't tell you.
|
On July 01 2019 07:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2019 00:14 iamthedave wrote:On June 30 2019 23:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Well he did clarify if you look at the post I responded to a bit above. Which he and what did he clarify. I don't see any reason to indulge in xdaunt's semantics when xdaunt refuse to discuss semantics, whilst at the same time providing his own lackluster semantics. xdaunt's " value of multiculturalism" which he sees has the "destruction" of "western order" and "western world", and ryzels tangent to that is not the same thing as your multiculturalism you are discussing with ryzel and others.
Funny how a certain class of posters had no problem understanding exactly what I was getting at. And funny how you, as usual, are completely lost. Perhaps you should reconcile those facts.
|
am i part of you guys culture
also I’m pretty sure politically motivated relativism is not a product of the past century lol
|
Andrew Yang's mic was off when he wanted to interject. Other candidates had their mics on for making accusations and contributing to the many free-for-alls. Now, Marianne Williamson is claiming the same thing happened to her.
This raises the specter of the NBC network deciding who gets to make a splash and who doesn't. The Harris-Biden exchange on civil rights was quite a moment for viewers. Forced busing programs were controversial back then, and Harris sought to make it another issue that Biden has to answer for in his long legislative record. Who knows how many other issues with health insurance, illegal immigration, or race that Andrew Yang could have made his mark upon?
This is a really dumb thing to be talking about after the 2016 Democratic Primary controversies with disfavoring the Sanders campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
