It's basically an article on how the right-wing parties of several European countries have rebranded themselves to use languages and ideas supported by left-wing groups.
There were two concepts that interested me-
1- That Liberalism (I think they're talking about Liberalism with the capital L, but I'm not sure) is a distinctly Western/European concept not shared by most foreign cultures. Immigration without assimilation threatens Liberalism.
2- That social minorities such as LGBT groups, social rights such as women's rights, and vice versa are under direct threat of a sufficiently large Islamic population.
Now, I don't know much about these parties and the politics of the various European countries. What I find interesting about the two concepts above, and the article in general, is that I think it gets to the heart of what exactly is immigration and assimilation.
What exactly does it mean to immigrate to a country? What is expected of you? What should you expect from the country you immigrated to?
I think these are all very important questions, and certainly are ones that I've had to grapple with myself as an immigrant to the U.S.
The fundamental issue is that immigration has always been a touchy subject everywhere since practically forever, and I get the sense that in, our bid to call ourselves a multi-cultural and global society, we've blinded ourselves to a lot of the questions behind it.
I don't even mean this in some racist sense. Here's an example-
This is an article from The Atlantic on how we define various cultural cuisines on the basis of their "prestige". I think it's a fascinating read, and I also think it dove-tails nicely into what I'm trying to talk about here.
This part of the article I find particularly funny/insightful-
When immigrant food is brought into the American fold, another big question, aside from whether it will be thought of as high- or low-end, is how long it will be considered exotic; food can be a useful entry point to thinking about how immigrant cultures are absorbed into the American mainstream, and what “mainstream” might look like in just a few decades. Only 80 or so years ago, The New York Times published an article that, to make a point about how radically Americans’ eating habits were changing, imagined a “hodge-podge” of “strange dishes” that a family at the time could plausibly plop on the dinner table next to each other, no matter how objectionable such a spread may have seemed. Those strange dishes? Spaghetti, meatballs, corn on the cob, sauerkraut, fruit salad, and apple pie. Yesterday’s strange hodgepodge is today’s boring dinner.
There's another fascinating article I read a while back that I unfortunately can't seem to find. It was basically on why Chinese cuisine is considered simplistic compared to French cuisine when Chinese cuisine is said to have a history that goes back more than a thousand years and incorporates styles and methods from a land-mass that is many times the size of France.
I suppose what I really want to ask is this, since this is one of the ideas that I've been thinking on and off about for quite some time-
Just what does it really mean to be a global society? How does it work? How does the concept of incorporating a number of different cultures and their constituent ideas into, say, the U.S. actually work?
The ultimate point of The Guardian piece above seems to be that today's right-wing European politicians are saying that the attempt to create a global society is a failure, and that further attempts to do so will cause the end of Liberal, Western civilization as we know it.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would be willing to argue that the creation of a true global society would mean a DEPARTURE from Western civilization (or would it actually be that there's no such thing as a divide between Western civilization and everything else. It's simply an antiquated view of the world and the liberal ideologies and societies in, say, Germany, is the only correct ideal. The ideals of a country like Saudi Arabia is extremely backwards and doesn't have a place in the world anymore?). Anything else would be an assimilation of the minority cultures into the broader scheme of Western civilization, but that doesn't seem to be an actual global society to me.
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that all follow the same ideals, whatever those ideals may be?
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that then go and follow whatever ideals they want to believe that they brought along?
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that then go and have them mix their ideals in a fashion that is somehow acceptable to everyone?
I'm sorry if this is confusing. I think it's an incredibly broad topic and I'm not sure how to structure it. I do think it's worth ruminating upon though, especially now that every Democrat seem to be espousing the virtues of a multi-cultural society.
The ultimate point of The Guardian piece above seems to be that today's right-wing European politicians are saying that the attempt to create a global society is a failure, and that further attempts to do so will cause the end of Liberal, Western civilization as we know it.
Which is hilarious, considering that they're fundamentally opposed to Liberalism.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would be willing to argue that the creation of a true global society would mean a DEPARTURE from Western civilization (or would it actually be that there's no such thing as a divide between Western civilization and everything else. It's simply an antiquated view of the world and the liberal ideologies and societies in, say, Germany, is the only correct ideal. The ideals of a country like Saudi Arabia is extremely backwards and doesn't have a place in the world anymore?). Anything else would be an assimilation of the minority cultures into the broader scheme of Western civilization, but that doesn't seem to be an actual global society to me.
Except you're not talking into account WHY.
WHY are these a culture's values? What is the rational basis behind them?
If you don't take that into account, then yes, it will all seem arbitrary. But it's not. It just seems arbitrary to you because you're ignoring the reasons behind it, not because there aren't reasons. We don't just prize liberal values of freedom, liberty, and equality because of the latitude and longitude of our birthplace, or because of the pigment of our skin. There are rational reasons for it.
For instance, obviously it's not a global society if you prize racial homogeneousness among your populace, right? Well, that brings us into liberalism. The idea of a society based on all men being treated equally is a liberal idea.
For a liberal democratic society to function, the rule of society has to be based on social equality and individual liberty. Social structures of strict hierarchy literally don't work because they infringe on other people's freedom and damage the structures of equality. People keeping their own religions or traditions is cool, as long as they don't infringe on other people. That's why integration is necessary.
As Highroller said, that's also why Far/Alt-Right Racist groups cannot function in liberal democracies: the racist structure is one of enforced inequality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
WHY are these a culture's values? What is the rational basis behind them?
If you don't take that into account, then yes, it will all seem arbitrary. But it's not. It just seems arbitrary to you because you're ignoring the reasons behind it, not because there aren't reasons. We don't just prize liberal values of freedom, liberty, and equality because of the latitude and longitude of our birthplace, or because of the pigment of our skin. There are rational reasons for it.
That's why I specifically brought up Saudi Arabia and Germany- two countries who social/cultural values seem rather far apart from one another.
I very much doubt that I can find anyone on this board who will defend the rationale behind social/cultural values in Saudi Arabia against those in Germany.
And, If that's the case, does it make sense to have Saudi Arabians who immigrated to Germany continue believing in their social/cultural values as opposed to having them learn and accept German social values?
How far along does this integration go before it ceases to be a multi-cultural society?
Edit-
Let me elaborate a bit more, since your argument really gets to the heart of it I think.
I think you're absolutely right. The rationale behind the cultural value/practice matters a lot. If the rationale doesn't some cultural belief held by Saudis don't hold up against scrutiny, then why should it be allowed in Germany?
For a liberal democratic society to function, the rule of society has to be based on social equality and individual liberty. Social structures of strict hierarchy literally don't work because they infringe on other people's freedom and damage the structures of equality. People keeping their own religions or traditions is cool, as long as they don't infringe on other people. That's why integration is necessary.
That's why I specifically brought up Saudi Arabia and Germany- two countries who social/cultural values seem rather far apart from one another.
I very much doubt that I can find anyone on this board who will defend the rationale behind social/cultural values in Saudi Arabia against those in Germany.
Depends on what values system.
And, If that's the case, does it make sense to have Saudi Arabians who immigrated to Germany continue believing in their social/cultural values as opposed to having them learn and accept German social values?
Depends on what they are.
How far along does this integration go before it ceases to be a multi-cultural society?
Well we can't discuss it in the abstract, but here's the important nuance that we have to maintain:
No country has fixed values, and the reason people adhere to values is not, "That's just how they are."
Belief in freedom and liberty is not a white person trait, nor a Western trait. Belief in religious persecution or a theocracy is not a Middle Eastern trait or a Muslim trait. To treat it as such would be to be buying into the mindset of the right extremists.
I think you're absolutely right. The rationale behind the cultural value/practice matters a lot. If the rationale doesn't some cultural belief held by Saudis don't hold up against scrutiny, then why should it be allowed in Germany?
My question then is- what are you left with?
Whatever's left.
I know what you're asking, but the question behind that question is: what is Germany? What is the German identity? Is it tied to a particular group of people, or can it be something else? Can immigrants to Germany still be German, even if their ethnic heritage isn't indigenous to that particular land?
Again I strongly caution not to inadvertently get caught up in the mindset, and most particularly the false dichotomies, of the right-wing isolationists. Because there seems to be, at least by my reading, an implication in your questions that you might not be aware of: that culture is purely based on ethnicity, and as such, two or more different ethnicities cannot share a culture.
Well we can't discuss it in the abstract, but here's the important nuance that we have to maintain:
No country has fixed values, and the reason people adhere to values is not, "That's just how they are."
Belief in freedom and liberty is not a white person trait, nor a Western trait. Belief in religious persecution or a theocracy is not a Middle Eastern trait or a Muslim trait. To treat it as such would be to be buying into the mindset of the right extremists.
[quote]I think you're absolutely right. The rationale behind the cultural value/practice matters a lot. If the rationale doesn't some cultural belief held by Saudis don't hold up against scrutiny, then why should it be allowed in Germany?
My question then is- what are you left with?
Whatever's left.
I know what you're asking, but the question behind that question is: what is Germany? What is the German identity? Is it tied to a particular group of people, or can it be something else? Can immigrants to Germany still be German, even if their ethnic heritage isn't indigenous to that particular land?
Again I strongly caution not to inadvertently get caught up in the mindset, and most particularly the false dichotomies, of the right-wing isolationists. Because there seems to be, at least by my reading, an implication in your questions that you might not be aware of: that culture is purely based on ethnicity, and as such, two or more different ethnicities cannot share a culture.
Which is, of course, untrue.
I suppose I expected something like this, what with The Guardian article and the way I started this thread.
I don't define culture purely in terms of ethnicity (heck, I believe that ethnicity/race on its own has absolutely nothing to do with your cultural beliefs), nor do I believe that culture is some fixed thing that doesn't change.
I also believe that cultural beliefs can clash with one another.
Now that these are out of the way, hopefully you can see my questions and the topic I want to get at without the assumption that I may be xenophobic.
I don't define culture purely in terms of ethnicity (heck, I believe that ethnicity/race on its own has absolutely nothing to do with your cultural beliefs), nor do I believe that culture is some fixed thing that doesn't change.
I also believe that cultural beliefs can clash with one another.
Now that these are out of the way, hopefully you can see my questions and the topic I want to get at without the assumption that I may be xenophobic.
I need to clarify: I'm not accusing you of being xenophobic, nor do I believe you are, I'm merely saying that in your attempts to respond or explore the opinions of extremists, you may have gotten caught up in a false dichotomy that they espouse without necessarily realizing it.
As I said, inherent to the question of whether X group of people can belong in Y country without cultural clash is the risk that one may get roped into the idea that ethnicity is the only source of culture.
This is, of course, what white nationalists or other nationalists who do not seek racial intermingling wish to promote: the idea that a country's identity is intrinsically linked to a particular race, and no other race can be a part of this national identity any more than they can be part of another race, because the two are not separate but one and the same.
But this ignores what is blatantly obvious to anyone who's been in any place in, say, America which contains more than one ethnicity. If you walk around New York City, for example, you will see many different groups of people, and if they're from New York, they're "New Yawkers," and they are so regardless of what nationality they are.
This is an important nuance, because it makes it clear that one need not subscribe to only one culture, and that cultures within a society can be a Venn diagram. That is to say, a society's identity (on any level, village, town, city, state, country) can be separate and distinct from the culture of any of the ethnic groups inhabiting it.
Another pitfall to watch out for, in the same vein, is the erroneous assumption that all people of a particular ethnicity or demographic subscribe to the same culture. I've touched on this above. It is from this mentality that you get presumptions like all Muslims are the same and possess the same beliefs. This is, of course, laughable, as to even say that all Shia or Sunni Muslims believe the same thing is ridiculous, to say nothing of the differences and, at times bitter and bloody, conflicts between the two.
It means there's more than one culture that makes up the society, usually in the form of more than one ethnic group.
And I'm not trying to be a smartass by just posting the obvious dictionary definition of the term, but instead putting that there because based on that question, that's really the only answer I can give because that's the only thing I know for certain. Everything else can't be decided in the abstract. It needs to be looked at in a specific context.
I need to clarify: I'm not accusing you of being xenophobic, nor do I believe you are, I'm merely saying that in your attempts to respond or explore the opinions of extremists, you may have gotten caught up in a false dichotomy that they espouse without necessarily realizing it.
Understood.
This might have happened because of the way I interpret what it means to be a nation, and my interpretation forms a big part of my questions regarding a multi-cultural society.
So, starting this thread without even defining this is probably my fault.
I would define nation as a functioning government that occupies a landmass and governs a group of people who are connected through certain overarching, and ultimately significant, cultural and social concepts and ideologies.
I think the overarching cultural ideology part is the key- It may be a creation myth like that of the Izanami creating Japan or the one in the Bible/certain significant historical event that people have taken to define them, like Mussolini lionizing the Roman Empire to define Italian nationhood during his rise/many many other forms that I don't recall off the top of my head.
The point is- There is some defining characteristic that the culture gives itself for it to stay united.
Obviously this defining characteristic can change over time or cease to be meaningful. If this happens, then either the people will find another characteristic that defines them or splinter off into different culture groups.
Simply put- I do not believe that ethnicity means anything as far as culture is concerned. I rent a room from a Korean landlady. Her sons were born in the U.S., don't speak a lick of Korean, and as far as I can tell possess not a single cultural trait that would help identify them as a Korean. They're Americans through and through.
I do firmly believe that nations have a lot to do with culture, in that a similar culture shared by a group of people is what ultimately leads to a sense of nationhood.
This is why I don't quite know how to define a multi-cultural society.
Let's go back to my Korean landlady and her sons. From what I understand, her sons would be defined in the U.S. census as ethnic Koreans, since both their parents are ethnic Koreans. Yet drop them off in Korea and they'd most definitely have no idea how to fit in.
This is why I find a definition of a multi-cultural society that goes something like "A society where various ethnic groups reside together" simplistic.
Why does the ethnicity matter? As far as the sons are concerned, they're Americans! Why should anyone care if they look like Koreans?
I do not think being able to eat a range of foods from different ethnicities and see a range of ethnic individuals in your daily life to mean "multi-cultural"; which seems to be how this seemingly defines it.
I like your definition, but I'd remove "usually in the form of more than one ethnic group". As I've mentioned, I don't see how ethnicity really figures into culture. An ethnic Korean born and raised in the U.S. and never really expected to follow Korean culture is an American.
So, a multi-cultural society is just that- a society made up of more than one culture.
What I'm questioning is whether this is even possible to begin with!
Now, cultural beliefs can vary in intensity and what they mean. The religion you practice is a cultural aspect. The food you eat is a cultural aspect.
I've once fought a schoolmate because he made fun of the barley tea my mom gave me for school. He said it looked like piss-water.
But, when push comes to shove, I'm not going to go and die for my right to drink freaking barley tea without seeing an aspect of my culture get insulted.
People might go and die for their right to practice a religion.
I think it's fair to say that the conflict we have today in the U.S. between secular and religious groups (think the LGBT-rights and abortion-rights fight) is functionally a conflict between two different cultural beliefs and vice versa.
I think the U.S. is already a multi-cultural state, with or without a variety of ethnic groups. And, when the cultures are significant enough to a personal identity to matter, there will be conflict with those who don't subscribe to the same culture.
As you wrote, a culture's value and purpose must be met with rational skepticism.
If you do this thoroughly enough, aren't you ultimately left with what amounts to a single range of cultural beliefs?
Or you do only do this to a cultural belief that can possibly create conflict, such as religion?
This is why I don't quite know how to define a multi-cultural society.
Let's go back to my Korean landlady and her sons. From what I understand, her sons would be defined in the U.S. census as ethnic Koreans, since both their parents are ethnic Koreans. Yet drop them off in Korea and they'd most definitely have no idea how to fit in.
This is why I find a definition of a multi-cultural society that goes something like "A society where various ethnic groups reside together" simplistic.
The least you can do is explain what the difference between "there are ethnic cultures" and "If you walk around New York City, for example, you will see many different groups of people, and if they're from New York, they're "New Yawkers," and they are so regardless of what nationality they are" are.
I don't know how ethnic cultures can exist when, if the ethnicity is the gating point for joining into that culture, then that culture seems discriminatory and thus potentially problematic in its beliefs?
If the ethnicity is not the gating point, then you'd have to explain to me just what you meant by your post here.
The least you can do is explain what the difference between "there are ethnic cultures" and "If you walk around New York City, for example, you will see many different groups of people, and if they're from New York, they're "New Yawkers," and they are so regardless of what nationality they are" are.
... The difference between identifying as an ethnicity and identifying as being part of a city is that one of them has to do with ethnicity and the other has to do with a city. It's pretty self-explanatory to me, so I'm not sure where the trouble you're having is stemming from.
Simply put- I do not believe that ethnicity means anything as far as culture is concerned. I rent a room from a Korean landlady. Her sons were born in the U.S., don't speak a lick of Korean, and as far as I can tell possess not a single cultural trait that would help identify them as a Korean. They're Americans through and through.
I do firmly believe that nations have a lot to do with culture, in that a similar culture shared by a group of people is what ultimately leads to a sense of nationhood.
This is why I don't quite know how to define a multi-cultural society.
Let's go back to my Korean landlady and her sons. From what I understand, her sons would be defined in the U.S. census as ethnic Koreans, since both their parents are ethnic Koreans. Yet drop them off in Korea and they'd most definitely have no idea how to fit in.
Ok, here's the issue: they're ethnically Korean in the sense of ancestry, but they have no connection to Korean culture. Which goes back to what I said, there are ethnic cultures.
Ethnicity is actually quite complex, and not purely based on ancestry. The Wikipedia article says: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences."
Culture is usually a very difficult to separate out thing anyways. People might agree that there is a US culture, and a Mexico culture, but if you look at areas that border those two countries it's probably not quite one or the other. Multi-cultural is probably more generally just being open to differences in what is a "generic" mainstream culture, but it's very vague and ephemeral stuff to define. I'd probably try asking anthropologists about this, they might be able to give you a more nuanced answer.
I like this question. I agree with the response from BS that culture could be based on any number of things (city, origin, ideology), not just ethnicity. Given that, you can create a multi-ethnic society by just including protections related to ethnicity, but to create a multi-cultural society it’s impossible to focus policy on just one attribute for inclusion.
I think that the answer is one that progressives might not like. The only thing that objectively differentiates the culture being accepted from the culture doing the accepting seems to be the number of members in each group. The numerical majority is the accepting group and the numerical minority is the accepted. And so to create a multi-cultural society, you need to include mechanisms that empower minorities against the majority.
What progressives might not like is that the American form of Republic was designed with this very thing in mind (ref James Madison), while “social progress” has been slowly eating away at it. Each state gets two senators regardless of population, presidents are elected by an electoral college, federal branches have limited powers, and a bill of rights sets limits on government power at every level. But since the founding, we have seen the senators come to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures, progressives calling for the abolishment of the electoral system, and civil liberties passed into federal statute instead of amendments. The more “progressive” states like California have also expanded ballot initiatives, the most majoritarian form of policy that there is.
Political reality, the “progressive” element who has always stood out as the champion of minorities now finds itself in the numerical majority. And, each side just wants to win. They want to use the power of the majority to win. On reflection, it should not be such a great surprise that the “traditional” cultural segment who now finds itself in the minority (US and EU) is now using the language of the minority. In the US, the right lost the popular vote for president and only won in the electoral system, the system that was designed specifically to protect minority interests. Only in the minds of the founders, the minority interests they mainly envisioned as needing protection were those rural groups, smaller states, religious colonies, etc, that are now identified with ethnicity and other group traits that are seen as privileged by the urban majority.
These mechanisms that make a multi-cultural society don’t discriminate based on how long a culture has been indigenous to the nation. They only work on the numbers.
Most of the leftists that are pro open borders are the ones living in mono-white gated communities. The reason we dont want third world immigration to lets say Europe from 3rd world countries esp. Muslim countries is that these migrants are exploiting what is supposed to be a safety net, the welfare, they are parasiting off of the workers and voting for even more forced redistrubution of hard earned wealth. If you look at the stats, these Muslim migrants are commiting highly disproportionate amounts of crime especially sexual assault. They adhere to an ideology that oppresses women and homosexuals which are two of the groups that leftists are supposedly in support of.
Most of the leftists that are pro open borders are the ones living in mono-white gated communities. The reason we dont want third world immigration to lets say Europe from 3rd world countries esp. Muslim countries is that these migrants are exploiting what is supposed to be a safety net, the welfare, they are parasiting off of the workers and voting for even more forced redistrubution of hard earned wealth. If you look at the stats, these Muslim migrants are commiting highly disproportionate amounts of crime especially sexual assault. They adhere to an ideology that oppresses women and homosexuals which are two of the groups that leftists are supposedly in support of.
Do you have any statistics to support the claim that 1. Immigrants are committing more crime, and 2. That the immigrants in particular are voting to enforce laws that oppress women and homosexuals? I worded the second one very specifically on purpose, because I'm expecting the immediate response to be something along the lines of "they're Muslims, of course they believe in that", which in and of itself is not 100% true*, but also because beliefs do not have to translate into actions. There are plenty of people who believe truly disturbing things but don't necessarily carry those out into actions, especially of the political kind.
With regards to the *, you can easily look at the wide range of beliefs with regards to Christianity and see that religious groups in general are not monolithic. Some may be more so than others, but no broad religious group like the Abrahamic religions in general is so completely homogenous in belief.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/01/the-ruthlessly-effective-rebranding-of-europes-new-far-right
It's basically an article on how the right-wing parties of several European countries have rebranded themselves to use languages and ideas supported by left-wing groups.
There were two concepts that interested me-
1- That Liberalism (I think they're talking about Liberalism with the capital L, but I'm not sure) is a distinctly Western/European concept not shared by most foreign cultures. Immigration without assimilation threatens Liberalism.
2- That social minorities such as LGBT groups, social rights such as women's rights, and vice versa are under direct threat of a sufficiently large Islamic population.
Now, I don't know much about these parties and the politics of the various European countries. What I find interesting about the two concepts above, and the article in general, is that I think it gets to the heart of what exactly is immigration and assimilation.
What exactly does it mean to immigrate to a country? What is expected of you? What should you expect from the country you immigrated to?
I think these are all very important questions, and certainly are ones that I've had to grapple with myself as an immigrant to the U.S.
The fundamental issue is that immigration has always been a touchy subject everywhere since practically forever, and I get the sense that in, our bid to call ourselves a multi-cultural and global society, we've blinded ourselves to a lot of the questions behind it.
I don't even mean this in some racist sense. Here's an example-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/the-future-is-expensive-chinese-food/491015/
This is an article from The Atlantic on how we define various cultural cuisines on the basis of their "prestige". I think it's a fascinating read, and I also think it dove-tails nicely into what I'm trying to talk about here.
This part of the article I find particularly funny/insightful-
There's another fascinating article I read a while back that I unfortunately can't seem to find. It was basically on why Chinese cuisine is considered simplistic compared to French cuisine when Chinese cuisine is said to have a history that goes back more than a thousand years and incorporates styles and methods from a land-mass that is many times the size of France.
I suppose what I really want to ask is this, since this is one of the ideas that I've been thinking on and off about for quite some time-
Just what does it really mean to be a global society? How does it work? How does the concept of incorporating a number of different cultures and their constituent ideas into, say, the U.S. actually work?
The ultimate point of The Guardian piece above seems to be that today's right-wing European politicians are saying that the attempt to create a global society is a failure, and that further attempts to do so will cause the end of Liberal, Western civilization as we know it.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would be willing to argue that the creation of a true global society would mean a DEPARTURE from Western civilization (or would it actually be that there's no such thing as a divide between Western civilization and everything else. It's simply an antiquated view of the world and the liberal ideologies and societies in, say, Germany, is the only correct ideal. The ideals of a country like Saudi Arabia is extremely backwards and doesn't have a place in the world anymore?). Anything else would be an assimilation of the minority cultures into the broader scheme of Western civilization, but that doesn't seem to be an actual global society to me.
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that all follow the same ideals, whatever those ideals may be?
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that then go and follow whatever ideals they want to believe that they brought along?
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that then go and have them mix their ideals in a fashion that is somehow acceptable to everyone?
I'm sorry if this is confusing. I think it's an incredibly broad topic and I'm not sure how to structure it. I do think it's worth ruminating upon though, especially now that every Democrat seem to be espousing the virtues of a multi-cultural society.
Except you're not talking into account WHY.
WHY are these a culture's values? What is the rational basis behind them?
If you don't take that into account, then yes, it will all seem arbitrary. But it's not. It just seems arbitrary to you because you're ignoring the reasons behind it, not because there aren't reasons. We don't just prize liberal values of freedom, liberty, and equality because of the latitude and longitude of our birthplace, or because of the pigment of our skin. There are rational reasons for it.
For instance, obviously it's not a global society if you prize racial homogeneousness among your populace, right? Well, that brings us into liberalism. The idea of a society based on all men being treated equally is a liberal idea.
As Highroller said, that's also why Far/Alt-Right Racist groups cannot function in liberal democracies: the racist structure is one of enforced inequality.
Art is life itself.
That's why I specifically brought up Saudi Arabia and Germany- two countries who social/cultural values seem rather far apart from one another.
I very much doubt that I can find anyone on this board who will defend the rationale behind social/cultural values in Saudi Arabia against those in Germany.
And, If that's the case, does it make sense to have Saudi Arabians who immigrated to Germany continue believing in their social/cultural values as opposed to having them learn and accept German social values?
How far along does this integration go before it ceases to be a multi-cultural society?
Edit-
Let me elaborate a bit more, since your argument really gets to the heart of it I think.
I think you're absolutely right. The rationale behind the cultural value/practice matters a lot. If the rationale doesn't some cultural belief held by Saudis don't hold up against scrutiny, then why should it be allowed in Germany?
My question then is- what are you left with?
What's a multi-cultural society in your opinion?
Depends on what they are.
Well we can't discuss it in the abstract, but here's the important nuance that we have to maintain:
No country has fixed values, and the reason people adhere to values is not, "That's just how they are."
Belief in freedom and liberty is not a white person trait, nor a Western trait. Belief in religious persecution or a theocracy is not a Middle Eastern trait or a Muslim trait. To treat it as such would be to be buying into the mindset of the right extremists.
Whatever's left.
I know what you're asking, but the question behind that question is: what is Germany? What is the German identity? Is it tied to a particular group of people, or can it be something else? Can immigrants to Germany still be German, even if their ethnic heritage isn't indigenous to that particular land?
Again I strongly caution not to inadvertently get caught up in the mindset, and most particularly the false dichotomies, of the right-wing isolationists. Because there seems to be, at least by my reading, an implication in your questions that you might not be aware of: that culture is purely based on ethnicity, and as such, two or more different ethnicities cannot share a culture.
Which is, of course, untrue.
I suppose I expected something like this, what with The Guardian article and the way I started this thread.
I don't define culture purely in terms of ethnicity (heck, I believe that ethnicity/race on its own has absolutely nothing to do with your cultural beliefs), nor do I believe that culture is some fixed thing that doesn't change.
I also believe that cultural beliefs can clash with one another.
Now that these are out of the way, hopefully you can see my questions and the topic I want to get at without the assumption that I may be xenophobic.
=D
What does it mean to be a multi-cultural society?
As I said, inherent to the question of whether X group of people can belong in Y country without cultural clash is the risk that one may get roped into the idea that ethnicity is the only source of culture.
This is, of course, what white nationalists or other nationalists who do not seek racial intermingling wish to promote: the idea that a country's identity is intrinsically linked to a particular race, and no other race can be a part of this national identity any more than they can be part of another race, because the two are not separate but one and the same.
But this ignores what is blatantly obvious to anyone who's been in any place in, say, America which contains more than one ethnicity. If you walk around New York City, for example, you will see many different groups of people, and if they're from New York, they're "New Yawkers," and they are so regardless of what nationality they are.
This is an important nuance, because it makes it clear that one need not subscribe to only one culture, and that cultures within a society can be a Venn diagram. That is to say, a society's identity (on any level, village, town, city, state, country) can be separate and distinct from the culture of any of the ethnic groups inhabiting it.
Another pitfall to watch out for, in the same vein, is the erroneous assumption that all people of a particular ethnicity or demographic subscribe to the same culture. I've touched on this above. It is from this mentality that you get presumptions like all Muslims are the same and possess the same beliefs. This is, of course, laughable, as to even say that all Shia or Sunni Muslims believe the same thing is ridiculous, to say nothing of the differences and, at times bitter and bloody, conflicts between the two.
It means there's more than one culture that makes up the society, usually in the form of more than one ethnic group.
And I'm not trying to be a smartass by just posting the obvious dictionary definition of the term, but instead putting that there because based on that question, that's really the only answer I can give because that's the only thing I know for certain. Everything else can't be decided in the abstract. It needs to be looked at in a specific context.
Understood.
This might have happened because of the way I interpret what it means to be a nation, and my interpretation forms a big part of my questions regarding a multi-cultural society.
So, starting this thread without even defining this is probably my fault.
I would define nation as a functioning government that occupies a landmass and governs a group of people who are connected through certain overarching, and ultimately significant, cultural and social concepts and ideologies.
I think the overarching cultural ideology part is the key- It may be a creation myth like that of the Izanami creating Japan or the one in the Bible/certain significant historical event that people have taken to define them, like Mussolini lionizing the Roman Empire to define Italian nationhood during his rise/many many other forms that I don't recall off the top of my head.
The point is- There is some defining characteristic that the culture gives itself for it to stay united.
Obviously this defining characteristic can change over time or cease to be meaningful. If this happens, then either the people will find another characteristic that defines them or splinter off into different culture groups.
Simply put- I do not believe that ethnicity means anything as far as culture is concerned. I rent a room from a Korean landlady. Her sons were born in the U.S., don't speak a lick of Korean, and as far as I can tell possess not a single cultural trait that would help identify them as a Korean. They're Americans through and through.
I do firmly believe that nations have a lot to do with culture, in that a similar culture shared by a group of people is what ultimately leads to a sense of nationhood.
This is why I don't quite know how to define a multi-cultural society.
Let's go back to my Korean landlady and her sons. From what I understand, her sons would be defined in the U.S. census as ethnic Koreans, since both their parents are ethnic Koreans. Yet drop them off in Korea and they'd most definitely have no idea how to fit in.
This is why I find a definition of a multi-cultural society that goes something like "A society where various ethnic groups reside together" simplistic.
Why does the ethnicity matter? As far as the sons are concerned, they're Americans! Why should anyone care if they look like Koreans?
I do not think being able to eat a range of foods from different ethnicities and see a range of ethnic individuals in your daily life to mean "multi-cultural"; which seems to be how this seemingly defines it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like your definition, but I'd remove "usually in the form of more than one ethnic group". As I've mentioned, I don't see how ethnicity really figures into culture. An ethnic Korean born and raised in the U.S. and never really expected to follow Korean culture is an American.
So, a multi-cultural society is just that- a society made up of more than one culture.
What I'm questioning is whether this is even possible to begin with!
Now, cultural beliefs can vary in intensity and what they mean. The religion you practice is a cultural aspect. The food you eat is a cultural aspect.
I've once fought a schoolmate because he made fun of the barley tea my mom gave me for school. He said it looked like piss-water.
But, when push comes to shove, I'm not going to go and die for my right to drink freaking barley tea without seeing an aspect of my culture get insulted.
People might go and die for their right to practice a religion.
I think it's fair to say that the conflict we have today in the U.S. between secular and religious groups (think the LGBT-rights and abortion-rights fight) is functionally a conflict between two different cultural beliefs and vice versa.
I think the U.S. is already a multi-cultural state, with or without a variety of ethnic groups. And, when the cultures are significant enough to a personal identity to matter, there will be conflict with those who don't subscribe to the same culture.
As you wrote, a culture's value and purpose must be met with rational skepticism.
If you do this thoroughly enough, aren't you ultimately left with what amounts to a single range of cultural beliefs?
Or you do only do this to a cultural belief that can possibly create conflict, such as religion?
The least you can do is explain what the difference between "there are ethnic cultures" and "If you walk around New York City, for example, you will see many different groups of people, and if they're from New York, they're "New Yawkers," and they are so regardless of what nationality they are" are.
I don't know how ethnic cultures can exist when, if the ethnicity is the gating point for joining into that culture, then that culture seems discriminatory and thus potentially problematic in its beliefs?
If the ethnicity is not the gating point, then you'd have to explain to me just what you meant by your post here.
Ok, here's the issue: they're ethnically Korean in the sense of ancestry, but they have no connection to Korean culture. Which goes back to what I said, there are ethnic cultures.
Ethnicity is actually quite complex, and not purely based on ancestry. The Wikipedia article says: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences."
I think that the answer is one that progressives might not like. The only thing that objectively differentiates the culture being accepted from the culture doing the accepting seems to be the number of members in each group. The numerical majority is the accepting group and the numerical minority is the accepted. And so to create a multi-cultural society, you need to include mechanisms that empower minorities against the majority.
What progressives might not like is that the American form of Republic was designed with this very thing in mind (ref James Madison), while “social progress” has been slowly eating away at it. Each state gets two senators regardless of population, presidents are elected by an electoral college, federal branches have limited powers, and a bill of rights sets limits on government power at every level. But since the founding, we have seen the senators come to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures, progressives calling for the abolishment of the electoral system, and civil liberties passed into federal statute instead of amendments. The more “progressive” states like California have also expanded ballot initiatives, the most majoritarian form of policy that there is.
Political reality, the “progressive” element who has always stood out as the champion of minorities now finds itself in the numerical majority. And, each side just wants to win. They want to use the power of the majority to win. On reflection, it should not be such a great surprise that the “traditional” cultural segment who now finds itself in the minority (US and EU) is now using the language of the minority. In the US, the right lost the popular vote for president and only won in the electoral system, the system that was designed specifically to protect minority interests. Only in the minds of the founders, the minority interests they mainly envisioned as needing protection were those rural groups, smaller states, religious colonies, etc, that are now identified with ethnicity and other group traits that are seen as privileged by the urban majority.
These mechanisms that make a multi-cultural society don’t discriminate based on how long a culture has been indigenous to the nation. They only work on the numbers.
Do you have any statistics to support the claim that 1. Immigrants are committing more crime, and 2. That the immigrants in particular are voting to enforce laws that oppress women and homosexuals? I worded the second one very specifically on purpose, because I'm expecting the immediate response to be something along the lines of "they're Muslims, of course they believe in that", which in and of itself is not 100% true*, but also because beliefs do not have to translate into actions. There are plenty of people who believe truly disturbing things but don't necessarily carry those out into actions, especially of the political kind.
With regards to the *, you can easily look at the wide range of beliefs with regards to Christianity and see that religious groups in general are not monolithic. Some may be more so than others, but no broad religious group like the Abrahamic religions in general is so completely homogenous in belief.