Multiculturalism is the Death of Human Diversity - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Saved posts from the old blog area.
#13297849
[youtube]iGYCMXfBrPc[/youtube]

When two cultures meet, two situations can occur - they either stay apart or they do not. When they fail to do so, it is for two reasons, and only two reasons: either one culture dominates the other - the Cajun culture no longer exists as a recognizable entity in the United States, because a much more homogeneous American culture has replaced it. This was doable in a large part due to free travel from other areas of the region into it. The same has happened to many other regions, throughout the world - Cornwall, for example, has been totally dominated by the English. Konigsberg is today wholly Russian. The Hebrew man has replaced the Arab. Whether this happens naturally, or due to genocide is of no concern (from a historical perspective) - it has happened.

Alternatively, the meeting of two cultures results in a creation of a new hybrid culture. When the Spanish arrived in Mexico, they forever destroyed the Aztec way of life - but in turn, the cultural intermixing in this region created a new, Latin culture, which is neither Spanish nor Indian.

In both these cases, however, a culture was destroyed. While some Indian communities do survive, the vast majority of them have been eradicated. We have lost, forever, their language, their music, their architecture and their art.

The same can continue to occur. An erosion of identity is the inevitable result of a policy of a united world government. Those in poorer regions will flood the rich regions - and in these cosmopolitan areas, mixing will occur, destroying, either because of supplanting or merging, the cultures that once existed.

This, of course, is assuming that the integration occurs, and does so peacefully. More likely is the situation that occurs when one culture does not want to mix, does not want to be destroyed. This situation emerges when one identity is not easily removed. We think of, in this situation, the multi-national states of Russia, of Yugoslavia, of Spain, of Pakistan, Iraq, or Afghanistan. We think of Canada. Today, and as time goes by, we think of France. What is the result here? Conflict. The Chechens, the Dagestani, the Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Basques and those who see themselves as Catalan. Pashtuns or Kurds. The Kashmir. The Timorans. Quebecois. When two cultures meet, and they refuse to mix, the only result is conflict. When two cultures have met, historically, the result has always been conflict.

There are two ways to destroy ethnic conflict - one, the one western liberals seem to endorse, is the creation of one human identity. This is the "melting pot". You endorse one race, one religion, one language. This is the only way a unified world would ever work as these cultural identities that refuse to compromise would cause wars, and these wars would destroy the unified global community. A uniform brown mass with the same language, the same religion, and the same culture. A very boring world.

The alternative is a different approach - that of a salad. Together, they are greater than the whole, but you can still see the constituent parts that make it up. This is the approach of pan-nationalist. It protects diversity on a global scale, by the creation of the nation-state. Islam and Arabic practices - protected in their own countries. They may practice their own laws, as they wish. Giving every identity their own community, where they are ruled by those they know, and identify with, strengthens these bonds, and preserves the great cultural diversity that make the Earth the world we know today - one of great differences in thought, worship, and art.

Nationalism is not a tool of bigotry or imperialism, but a tool to preserve the great wonders of human diversity, the greatest wonder of the world. Multiculturalism is little more than genocide on the very idea of human diversity.

So - let the Swiss ban minarets. Let the French fine the burqha. But let the Catholic Church remain outside of Saudi Arabia. Protect the very thing that makes us human - our great diversity.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13299142
I do not think this piece really holds. Your primary fear is the destruction of human diversity throughout the world. This would be presumably under the impact of the spread of uniformizing Western (now American) culture and the old crusading zeal to convert. This is the opposite of what is meant by "multiculturalism," which besides, is mainly about internal diversity. I am not sure what you are prescribing. Presumably ethnic homogeneity achieved either an "assimilationist" policy or minimizing ethnic diversity altogether (whether through immigration restriction, conversion, separation).

I do think the B5 video is an extremely nice touch. It makes me nostalgic, as corny as that show was, a nice linking of a progressive (multicultural!) show and a fascist argument.
User avatar
By Fasces
#13299239
Two cultures cannot peaceably, and never have been able to, exist within a single state without compromising their cultural diversity to some degree, which ultimately results in the destruction of the unique cultures making up the state. I have found no examples, and if an exception does exist, I would like to hear of it.

When two cultures do coexist within one state, the only potential result is assimilation by either peaceful or violent means, or extermination, either through peaceful or violent means. Ultimately, however, a culture is lost. This assumes both communities exist in equal numbers, not as an extreme minority within a larger nation.

Internal multiculturalism is not even feasible, and even condemnable as a new form of cultural genocide.

The only successful method that can thus exist to preserve cultural diversity is separation, into ethno-cultural states, which is what I advocate here. Thus, the advocacy for preserving Britain for the British people, or approving of the ban of minarets in Switzerland, but also an advocacy for the independence from Western cultural domination of the Islamic states, of China, and others.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13299280
The standard discussion of "culture" sees it as a static, unchanging thing. You show awareness of its endless destruction and recreation in new forms. Given that cultural values change, that the very meaning of a thing like "Western culture" changes, and in particular we see many of the differences stressed with "Islamic culture" with regard to women were not so strong even 50 years ago, what does that say about what culture ought to be? When not thinking in defensive, static terms - let us preserve our differences - is it not more interesting to think in terms of what we should be creating? Mankind is nothing without culture in the broadest sense, it is literaly man creating himself, to attempt to shape culture is perhaps the highest form of self-mastery we can have.
User avatar
By Fasces
#13299283
The world has become smaller, much smaller. While I do not contend that our definition of Western culture today may differ from what it is in 1,000 years (and I fully expect it too), such a small world increases cultural mixing. If two cultures continue to mix, and form a single hybrid, the ultimate endpoint of such mixing would be a single universal culture - and an end of diversity.

Should cultural intermixing occur? Certainly, but moves must be taken to provide limitations that once existed since geographical separation has ceased to be a dividing factor. Failure to do so will result in cultural uniformity world wide, would it not?
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13299349
I don't see it happening except in a certain convergence towards a shared "modern wealthy capitalist" society. This society, whatever its merits, is not desirable or undesirable based on whether it is really "European," "Chinese," "Indian" or what have you..
User avatar
By Fasces
#13299358
Linguist McWorther tells us that, by 2150, over 90% of currently spoken languages will have become extinct.

I read the news, and notice that an American coffee maker has opened a shop in the Forbidden Palace.

European pressures on bullfighting may ban it.

The Indian government is trying to create a unified culture on its subcontinent.

Cultural distinctions arose from geographic separation in the past. This is no longer an issue. Globalization has coupled with ease of travel, and it is an assault to cultural independence. The modern, wealthy, and capitalist society will have little more than superficial cultural differentiation, at best. Humanistic and liberal tendencies of such a society will slowly eradicate the most beautiful aspect of humanity. Some may see a brown monocultural, monoreligious, and monolinguist world necessary for a global utopia. They may be right - but such a world would be devoid of a very specific kind of beauty.

The creation of an ethnostate, and the associated culture of such states, may help prevent what geography once did, and allow such differences remain a vital component of the human spirit.

Trump and Biden have big differences on some issue[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]