Grandfather quietly rubbed his aged, calloused hands together and slowly leaned forward in his chair. The deck creaked quielty beneath us. One sentence was all he uttered, his voice barley but a whisper.
"Are you not both human?"
Cheers.
In addition to his draconian proposals on tackling terrorism, Mr Blair has thrown into question the future of multiculturalism in Britain via his Commission on Integration. But Multiculturalism did not create separatism or ethnic enclaves. Culturalism did. The confusion arises from the inability of government and commentators alike to distinguish between the multicultural society as fact and multiculturalism as policy.
Culturalism, or ethnicism, as policy was Thatcher’s and Scarman’s answer to the racism that in 1981 had ignited the major cities of Britain. Lord Scarman in his investigations into the Brixton riots denied point blank the existence of institutional racism, and located the cause of the riots in ‘racial disadvantage’, the cure for which was pouring money into ethnic projects and strengthening ethnic cultures. But as the Institute of Race Relations pointed out at the time, the fight against racism cannot be reduced to a fight for culture. Nor does it require the state to give people their cultures; they already have them, however attenuated these cultures may be by racism. Nor does learning about other peoples’ cultures make the racists less racist. Besides, the racism that needs to be contested is not personal prejudice (which has no authority behind it) but institutionalised racism, the racism woven, over centuries of colonialism and slavery, into the structures of society and into the instruments and institutions of government, local and central. And that is why Macpherson, in his landmark report on racism, passed over the myth of cultural compensation as the antidote to racism and established institutionalised racism instead as the problem that needed to be tackled. Alas, this proposal had hardly become policy before it was virtually killed off by the tabloids and the Right.
Edited by HenryKrinkle ()
deadken posted:the problem with multiculturalism is it involves this weird reification of 'cultural differences' and ends up as white paternalism by other means
so is that bad because it falls in a category of Bad Things or bad because there are actual negative outcomes
Ultimately though multiculturalism is just an intermediary step or method in the unification of cultures. It is the totally inevitable conflict that arises between cultures as they are forced to interact due to proximity. As the contradictions between two cultures are confronted, both original cultures are phased out and a new hybrid culture replaces them. These contradictions are worked out by debating individual tenets the cultures disagree on; a slow process of rational conversion ensures the victory of one tenet over the other. It is ideological evolution, and the new ideology will be more robust than the ideologies that birthed it.
Modern communication via the Internet, journalism and art ensures the steady progress of globalism. In the end everyone on Earth will have the same fundamental ideology and thus multiculturalism will no longer truly exist. There will be one global culture and there will be peace.
roseweird posted:multiculturalism is reality, complaining about it is just a response to the looming reality of death in the face of one's investment in cultural continuity in the unknown future (after you die), all cultures are actually fictions, all history is actually mythology
pretty good impression of a post-modern liberal
innsmouthful posted:I looked the old man in the eye and exclaimed, "But grandfather, I have nothing in common with him! How can you expect this of me?"
Grandfather quietly rubbed his aged, calloused hands together and slowly leaned forward in his chair. The deck creaked quielty beneath us. One sentence was all he uttered, his voice barley but a whisper.
"Are we human? Or are we dancer?"
Agnus_Dei posted:Multiculturalism is bad because it diminishes the social cohesion of a nation and eliminates communal harmony. Many contradictory cultural philosophies inhabit the same space and thus everyone feels that they belong to a faction within the nation rather than the nation itself; on a larger scale they feel like they belong to a portion of humanity rather than to humanity itself.
Ultimately though multiculturalism is just an intermediary step or method in the unification of cultures. It is the totally inevitable conflict that arises between cultures as they are forced to interact due to proximity. As the contradictions between two cultures are confronted, both original cultures are phased out and a new hybrid culture replaces them. These contradictions are worked out by debating individual tenets the cultures disagree on; a slow process of rational conversion ensures the victory of one tenet over the other. It is ideological evolution, and the new ideology will be more robust than the ideologies that birthed it.
Modern communication via the Internet, journalism and art ensures the steady progress of globalism. In the end everyone on Earth will have the same fundamental ideology and thus multiculturalism will no longer truly exist. There will be one global culture and there will be peace.
only 'one nature' humanity is predestined to have will be after the big war,we will all be ashes together
look at the history of your culture, whatever you consider your culture to be, and you will find that every cultural apex, every accomplishment of law or art or industry, is actually a moment of skilful incorporation of native and exotic cultural elements.
What?
Mozart, your move.
The rest is good though.
Capitalism has given rise to a special form of migration of nations. The rapidly developing industrial countries, introducing machinery on a large scale and ousting the backward countries from the world market, raise wages at home above the average rate and thus attract workers from the backward countries
\
There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations. Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries in huge factories and mines in America, Germany, and so forth.
\
The bourgeoisie incites the workers of one nation against those of another in the endeavour to keep them disunited. Class-conscious workers, realising that the break-down of all the national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise their fellow-workers from the backward countries.
\
all classical music was already a massive pan-mediterranean synthesis, and neo-classical and baroque music drew heavily on arabic, greek, turkish etc. music and folk forms. there is a reason that the musician is associated with the traveler.
Interesting, I had no idea. Even Naziism has multicultural roots.
What about Toltec culture and all that which didn't have sea trade? I can't see that influenced by anything outside mesoamerica.
roseweird posted:preserving culture is important, but being unwilling to do so in the process of cultural hybridization is inane. capitalism doesn't care. it can market a "pure" native culture just as well as a hybrid one. if anything, capitalism prefers the pure culture, since this frees it from real innovation, which arises purely from determination to combine the incompatible.
look at the history of your culture, whatever you consider your culture to be, and you will find that every cultural apex, every accomplishment of law or art or industry, is actually a moment of skilful incorporation of native and exotic cultural elements. if we were interested in preserving only "original" culture we would be trying to figure out how we all lived before the first hominid emigration from east africa or something. but we aren't—we are primarily interested in generalizing our cultural preoccupations and attachments, formed in our lifetimes and justified by extremely selective readings of history.
culture is more than bunch of dishes, costumes, and melodies. those all important expressions, but you can separate them from their mother culture. however, capitalism cannot absorb all the virtues and taboos of every culture, it has to extinguish them, until you're left with just the ashes of the culture. samo sloga srbina spasava
cultural synthesis is one of the primary forms of resistance to capital—as capital grinds up and burns cultures, they replace the lost pieces of themselves with the cultures they come into contact with. this process can go equitably (harmonious cultural hybridization) or poorly (violent cultural appropriation)
Then this means multiculturalism is pro-capitalist because multiculturalism is about keeping multiple cultures, as opposed to melting pot processes where multiple cultures hybridize into one.
animedad posted:who is anyone to assert their stupid culture. multiculturalism is fantastic at destroying culture which is a Good thing because we're far better off in a future world where we all look the same, talk the same, and have all watched the same animes
clearly the only hope we have against multiculturalism is for Cycloneboy to achieve a posting ratio of 400%, finally asserting the power of his heart, reversing Third Impact and ending the Human Instrumentality Project forever
roseweird posted:i'm not talking about dishes, costumes, and tunes. that is why i instead said law, art, and industry. i agree that capitalism cannot absorb culture in its full development and particularity, but capital affects all culture and has done so at every point in history. cultural synthesis is one of the primary forms of resistance to capital—as capital grinds up and burns cultures, they replace the lost pieces of themselves with the cultures they come into contact with. this process can go equitably (harmonious cultural hybridization) or poorly (violent cultural appropriation)
i don't have a problem with cultural synthesis, but withing modernity it's not usually a resistance to capital. obviously all culture is a synthesis of a countless surrounding and preceding cultures. but the vector of cultural synthesis in modernity is towards the slow erosion of virtue outside of capital. i'm saying this as someone who has personally watched the culture of his people slowly erode under the transition to capitalism.