bellisarius
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2017
- Posts
- 16,761
I'm launching this off this thread'
Theil on multiculturalism
Reading through that thread there were a lot of good comments, whether I agreed or not. So I'm starting this thread to express my thoughts on the subject specifically in regard to the US.
To start out I'm going to state that multi-multiculturalism and diversity are NOT the same. Culture by it's very nature is tribal in nature. One of the best examples I know of is Swift's "Gulliver's Travels." An excellent example of tribal culture. Diversity is you say tomAto, I say tomatO. We may both think each other odd, but it's the difference isn't worth a confrontation.
Confrontations begin where the underlying cultural differences are so profound that there can be no reconciliation. Going to extremes here, an example would be to accommodate a Borneo head hunter in the interests of multi-culturalism. Diverse? You bet. Want hm/her practicing their culture next door?
For years the US school systems have been teaching that "we're all the same." In a biological sense that's true, in a cultural sense nothing could be further from the truth. All cultures are not equivalent. You have to make a decision at some point which 'tribe' you want to follow.
A poster in the thread I've referenced made the point that the US has groups that celebrate different things. The Italians do this, the Germans that, etc. At the founding of this nation there was a serious discussion as to whether we should be bi-lingual (German-English) or not. English was decided upon for two reasons. The first being that due to linguistic nuances there is no way law can be be written, let alone administered, across two languages. The second being that the underlying ethos were essentially the same. (As I recall the poster made reference to 'Protestant' underpinning's. He/she was correct there too, the Roman Catholics were here and had a voice as well. The agreement was to base our legal system on Judaeo/Christian ethics. Ironically an ethos that has a great deal in common with the more advanced Asian and even the ancient Egyptian/Roman ethos.
If you, as a group, march in lock-step based solely on your race, cultural origin, religion, sexual orientation or other such notions, then you're tribal. Not all that far removed from the Hutu's and the Tutis's. And that's the path to civil war.
Theil on multiculturalism
Reading through that thread there were a lot of good comments, whether I agreed or not. So I'm starting this thread to express my thoughts on the subject specifically in regard to the US.
To start out I'm going to state that multi-multiculturalism and diversity are NOT the same. Culture by it's very nature is tribal in nature. One of the best examples I know of is Swift's "Gulliver's Travels." An excellent example of tribal culture. Diversity is you say tomAto, I say tomatO. We may both think each other odd, but it's the difference isn't worth a confrontation.
Confrontations begin where the underlying cultural differences are so profound that there can be no reconciliation. Going to extremes here, an example would be to accommodate a Borneo head hunter in the interests of multi-culturalism. Diverse? You bet. Want hm/her practicing their culture next door?
For years the US school systems have been teaching that "we're all the same." In a biological sense that's true, in a cultural sense nothing could be further from the truth. All cultures are not equivalent. You have to make a decision at some point which 'tribe' you want to follow.
A poster in the thread I've referenced made the point that the US has groups that celebrate different things. The Italians do this, the Germans that, etc. At the founding of this nation there was a serious discussion as to whether we should be bi-lingual (German-English) or not. English was decided upon for two reasons. The first being that due to linguistic nuances there is no way law can be be written, let alone administered, across two languages. The second being that the underlying ethos were essentially the same. (As I recall the poster made reference to 'Protestant' underpinning's. He/she was correct there too, the Roman Catholics were here and had a voice as well. The agreement was to base our legal system on Judaeo/Christian ethics. Ironically an ethos that has a great deal in common with the more advanced Asian and even the ancient Egyptian/Roman ethos.
If you, as a group, march in lock-step based solely on your race, cultural origin, religion, sexual orientation or other such notions, then you're tribal. Not all that far removed from the Hutu's and the Tutis's. And that's the path to civil war.
