Can anyone tell us about examples of when Multiculturalism has worked well? - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14923852
Also, if time in that location was the determining factor then humans were in Africa 130,000 years longer than anywhere else. So, civilization should have started there, it didn't.


So I am curious to understand why you think "civilization" did not begin in Africa. Are you taking the view that civilization proceeded from the adaptation of agriculture? Are you making the distinction that settlement living based on agriculture is somehow superior to hunter-gatherer living?

You are not without justification if your goal is to demonstrate that a society with a warrior class is more durable than one without. If you are arguing something else I would be curious to know what it is.

You seem to be basing your entire argument on those in one (arguably good) book. You do know there are other theories out there.
#14924054
Drlee wrote:
So I am curious to understand why you think "civilization" did not begin in Africa. Are you taking the view that civilization proceeded from the adaptation of agriculture? Are you making the distinction that settlement living based on agriculture is somehow superior to hunter-gatherer living?

You are not without justification if your goal is to demonstrate that a society with a warrior class is more durable than one without. If you are arguing something else I would be curious to know what it is.

You seem to be basing your entire argument on those in one (arguably good) book. You do know there are other theories out there.

I studied and later majored in Anthropology in College in the early 1970s.
I kept reading as an adult.
I didn't see one error in Diamond's book.
I do need to say here, I meant Africa south of the Sahara.
The definition of "civilization" was created way back when by European imperialists. It described them and their ancestors.
I don't think this made the definition wrong.
The definition describes what it takes to be militarily strong and last for a while to get into the history books.
It has nothing to do with being nice or having a happy citizen population.
If those 2 were the criteria then no nation history calls civilized would be called that.
I just took the question asked, and using the definitions I had learned; gave my answer.
It is totally possible that there is a new PC definition of 'civilized' that leaves out Athens, the Romans, Ming China, European nations from 1500 until 2000, etc., etc. But, I am not aware of that definition.

Africa didn't become civilized because of the reasons Diamond gave ---
1] No domesticable animals that eat grass and leaves.
2] No wild plant foods to domesticate that would be easily stored for years.
3] Rivers that flowed over escarpments [water falls] that limited river transport. No big bays along the coast to pull people onto the sea. Compare it with Europe.
4] The land area is more or less round, not long east and west like Eurasia or long north and south like the Americas. This makes it harder to move plants around than in Eurasia but not as hard as in the Americas.
5] Others I may have forgotten.


I was thinking that in Anthro. I learned about the 4 levels of social organization. From high to low.
1] State level --- much like civilized
2] Chiefdom level --- nomadic animal herders (Huns & Sioux) or advanced gardeners (Celts) or almost state level (Zulus)
3] Tribal level --- gardeners with pigs and chickens (New Guinea) or relying on hunting for meat (Native Americans)
4] Band level --- hunters and gatherers

Most people see them as progress from the bottom up to the top over time.
I would see them as change from happy egalitarian societies at the bottom to less and less happy and equal societies over time.

There is nothing better about a society that conquers its neighbors because it can, except that in a dog eat dog world it wins.
Nuclear weapons have changed things though.
#14924380
Potemkin wrote:The point I think Tainari is making is that, as Walter Benjamin put it, "Every document of civilisation is simultaneously a document of barbarism." What he meant by that was that every great achievement of civilisation is also a great crime against humanity. The Pyramids were a great achievement of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, but they were built using slave labour. The Roman Colosseum was a great architectural and technical marvel, yet it was used to throw Christians to the lions and display gladiatorial combats to the death. The British Raj built the railway system in India, yet it also caused millions of deaths through famine and economic exploitation. Every document of civilisation is simultaneously a document of barbarism. Why should the Aztecs be any different? More to the point, why should our civilisation be any different?

Europe was inhabited by modern humans more than 40,000 years ago. The Americas were only colonised by modern humans less than 20,000 years ago. It was the last continent (excepting Antarctica) to be settled by humans. I think they did pretty well, all things considered.

She wasn't disputing this. Instead, she was pointing out the hypocrisy of modern Western civilisation, which claims to be 'Christian' and claims to be bringing 'freedom' and 'enlightenment' to the 'savages', when in fact they have acted and are acting no differently from every other empire in human history. The Aztecs were brutal conquerors and imperialists, but they never pretended otherwise. Their stated beliefs were consistent with their actions. Our stated beliefs are not consistent with our actions.


She doesn't have to try to insult you. You are insulting yourself.

I'll focus on just 1 point and a question.
You said, "The Aztecs were brutal conquerors and imperialists, but they never pretended otherwise." Do you have a source for this? I am unaware of any 16th Cent. sources about how the Aztecs had presented themselves to their vassals and more to the point what they thought about what they were doing.

I suspect that they thought they were doing good. Maybe they thought they were keeping the world going because if they ever stopped then the gods would destroy the world. I don't know. But I really doubt you know either.

But, I also really don't get why you are attacking me. I said American settlers stole all the US from the natives. I implied that that was not nice and certainly didn't live up to the standards they were claiming to live by. I just said everyone did the same including the Aztecs.
#14924387
Tainari88 wrote:
Steve, have you considered that in order for a civilization to sustain itself one of its requirements is to be able to fulfill its dietary requirements of its leisure class. They need to have a steady and reliable supply of food that doesn't require modern refridgeration. The Egyptians had huge grain silohs. Grape, grain and etc for Egypt. Ancient grains like millet and amaranth and teff for Africa, etc It has to be a carb, protein and vitamin c combo that sustains many workers, and people all living in urban settings. Corn by itself for the Aztecs is low in nutrition. It only creates a perfect protein/carb chain where the complete set of amino acids are present when corn and beans are eaten [utogether. You then have squash and chiles. To add the vitamin c. Perfect. No need for meat. Though guajalotes (turkeys) were consumed. Chocolate if done the ancient way is a very high antioxidant that is filled with rare minerals. It was prepared in drinks for the wealthiest of nobles.

You are right that the Aztecs were hated. They built empires and as such they established military and religious hiarchichal structures. But there is no denial that Tenotchitlan was a civilization Steve. It had all the attributes of a human civilization.

Empires in history are mostly hated by the conquered people who pay the price of the ambition of the elites in those societies. The USA is not much different.

In fact Tenotchitlan (Mexico City), at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards have direct documents of what the Spaniards observed. They stated the citizens were healthy and well fed. There were all the protocols of royalty. There were artisans and artists, priesthood and workers and sport, there was written language and many written documents were deliberately burned by the Spanish. The Valley of Mexico had the right set of circumstances to have nearly a quarter of a million residents in the 16th century--it had more residents than Venice, and many European cities of the same era.

It had strict laws and courts. No public displays of drunkeness and no stealing in market places. Currency in terms of cacao beans and other forms of trade. Translators. Tribute (taxes), borders on certain territories. Markings of time, and advanced concepts of mathematics.

Nahuatl had singers and poets writing poetry. Everything.

The issue of eating flesh. I already replied to Kaiserscharrm about the bias about eating flesh, sacrificing and torturing human beings in public rituals. It is not uniquely Aztec. It existed in many cultures.

I find you somewhat biased Steve about Mesoamerican cultural histories.

I underlined what I want to reply to.
1] Recently I read something about how hard it was for vegans to get enough vitaman B-12 in their diet. So I googled it. I found this.

"The best sources of Vitamin B12 include: eggs, milk, cheese, milk products, meat, fish, shellfish and poultry. Some soy and rice beverages as well as soy based meat substitutes are fortified with vitamin B12. To see if a product contains vitamin B12 check the Nutrition Facts on the food label. Mar 7, 2017"

Note that all of those are animals or animal products. Fortified soy products do not count. Native Americans had to make do with natural products. Without cows and goats to milk they were limited to eggs, animals, and shellfish. This is a hole in their diet that they must fill.

BTW --- I read years ago that to forgo hunting, people needed plants that provided several things.
1] Starch and sugars == normally from grains including corn, wheat, and rice, etc.
2] Complete protein == beans, like corn plus lima beans
3] Oil == oilly plants, olive oil was big in the Middle East and Greek/Roman worlds. I don't think [but I could be wrong] corn oil was a thing for Native Americans.
4] Fiber == cotton and linen. For cloths, etc.

As far as I know Natives had all these except oil and vitamin B-12. So, they needed meat. Hunting will not work for civilized people because you hunt out the near by woods or drive the game away. Turkeys eat food that humans can eat, corn. Dogs also eat what people can eat, even if it is not meat.
. . . Also, as I said up thread. Cows and horses eat the grass that grows in the spaces between fields, etc. They eat the weeds you pull out by the roots. Having them around about doubles the amount of the energy you can use that the plants have captured from sunlight. And having more energy is always better.

2] When I was in college the estimated population of the whole valley of Mexico in 1520 was about 3 million. The capital city was the 1/4 million you said there. Truth is my goal here.
Last edited by Steve_American on 14 Jun 2018 18:28, edited 1 time in total.
#14924430
I suspect that they thought they were doing good. Maybe they thought they were keeping the world going because if they ever stopped then the gods would destroy the world. I don't know. But I really doubt you know either.


This is a fair point and at the heart of the debate here.

Meaning. Who gets to decide what "worked well_ means? We have a more egalitarian notion of what a culture "working" means. We seem to believe that if there are people for whom the society does not work (for example today's poor or those oppressed by ISIL) then the society is not "working". Should we believe this? Is success measured for the majority, the leadership, some moral abstraction or what?

We haven't even defined what would constitute a multicultural society very well. Some would say that the US is multicultural. A very good case could be made for saying that it is not really very multicultural. For example. We have a large number of people coming to the US from Mexico. Is this really a clash of cultures? A good case could be made for asserting that Mexicans are actually mostly the same culture. Yes, they speak a different language but that is a temporary situation. When it comes to values they are the same as us. They are, for the most part, Christian with pretty mainstream beliefs. They are unabashed capitalists. Their beliefs, goals and desires are not different from us in any significant way. Is culture the language of music? Is it some theme in cooking? Not significantly. The regional differences in American cooking among those born here are nearly as pronounced. Chinese immigrants coming to the US embrace our values in ways that, if anything, are enhanced. The trappings of their Chinese culture are not weighing on our notions of national solidarity.

Among immigrants, only Islam seems to be a bugaboo. Those among Islamic immigrants who retain fundamentalist ideas might run afoul of our laws and customs. But does that really happen much? Not in my experience.

If you take away basic human desires for a fair deal, a good job, reasonable freedom of worship, and basic necessities, what remains leaves us pole vaulting over mouse droppings. I could make a good case for saying that except for a very few regions of this planet, we are all the same culture.
#14924991
Drlee wrote:
This is a fair point and at the heart of the debate here.

Meaning. Who gets to decide what "worked well_ means? We have a more egalitarian notion of what a culture "working" means. We seem to believe that if there are people for whom the society does not work (for example today's poor or those oppressed by ISIL) then the society is not "working". Should we believe this? Is success measured for the majority, the leadership, some moral abstraction or what?

We haven't even defined what would constitute a multicultural society very well. Some would say that the US is multicultural. A very good case could be made for saying that it is not really very multicultural. For example. We have a large number of people coming to the US from Mexico. Is this really a clash of cultures? A good case could be made for asserting that Mexicans are actually mostly the same culture. Yes, they speak a different language but that is a temporary situation. When it comes to values they are the same as us. They are, for the most part, Christian with pretty mainstream beliefs. They are unabashed capitalists. Their beliefs, goals and desires are not different from us in any significant way. Is culture the language of music? Is it some theme in cooking? Not significantly. The regional differences in American cooking among those born here are nearly as pronounced. Chinese immigrants coming to the US embrace our values in ways that, if anything, are enhanced. The trappings of their Chinese culture are not weighing on our notions of national solidarity.

Among immigrants, only Islam seems to be a bugaboo. Those among Islamic immigrants who retain fundamentalist ideas might run afoul of our laws and customs. But does that really happen much? Not in my experience.

If you take away basic human desires for a fair deal, a good job, reasonable freedom of worship, and basic necessities, what remains leaves us pole vaulting over mouse droppings. I could make a good case for saying that except for a very few regions of this planet, we are all the same culture.

The part I bolded followed the paragraph about sub-cultures in America.
I therefore, assume that by "Not in my experience" you meant in America.
However, I started this thread in 'Europe' for a reason. I stipulated that America has not had the same problems as Europe has had. There are reasons for this that are not the point.
. . . The point is I was specifically talking about "in Europe".
. . . Since you, DrLee, don't live in Europe is your experience any guide at all to what the problems are or might be in Europe?

BTW --- I totally get it that everyone is confused by the idea that the problem may be bigger in Europe because the situation there is different in several ways from the situation in America. The posters here insist on gathering Europe and America into one pot and attacking me and others for seeing that Europe is different and wanting to address the problems in Europe separately.

I agree that the posters here have *refused* to come to an agreement of just what they mean here, in this thread, by 'Multiculturalism'. I have tried 2 approaches and neither was accepted, and one was basically ignored.
#14925080
I agree people have much more in common than differences, but to conclude we should ignore those differences does not logically follow.
If you make $500,000 a year, you will not choose to live with people having common beliefs on welfare. You may share their values, but you will not live with them.
The same is true of our cultural differences. Even though minor, they matter. Sometimes they require us to live separately from those we have a lot of other things in common. This is not racism or any other ism. It is a personal choice.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]

I think we really have to ask ourselves what t[…]