Doesn't Diversity Presume Inequality? - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15008060
Hong Wu wrote:Another thing that crossed my mind the other day is that in non-western countries with a lot of diversity (such as India, or to a lesser degree, China) they don't describe what they are as "diverse". Indians just describe themselves as Indians, no matter if they're a Hindu, a Jain, a Sikh, a Buddhist or sometimes even a Muslim. Chinese just describe themselves as Chinese, although the cultural revolution had a hand in that. Only in the west are people hyphenated versions of their country, along with a discussion of diversity. I think I've touched on this idea before but I suspect that as soon as the term "diversity" is being used there has been a failure of some kind.


Dear @Hong Wu: I discussed this very point with other people who explained
1. in countries such as Japan or France, immigrants are NEVER considered the same as native nationals.
So this goes both ways. The reason they are all considered Japanese is outsiders are not.

2. In the US there USED to be more cultural assimilation. But this became more lax over time and generations.
Instead of being Americans first, and the local cultures within that,
more often now we are seeing groups putting their own identities first, even at the expense of rights of others.
We even have "reverse racism" going on, where the previous cultural norms are denigrated as being oppressive and negative.

The cure for this problem of diversity, especially of political beliefs that are causing an internal civil war
even within the same party, is to teach all people equal knowledge, empowerment and enforcement of
Constitutional laws by which all people of all creeds are protected equally, and no one is deprived of
liberty or rights without DUE PROCESS of laws. We can't just declare one group racist or inferior and
deserving to be overridden denied rights or discriminated against by our "own beliefs".

If we all have equal knowledge and empowerment to invoke authority and enforce laws of democratic self government, we can have both the cultural diversity and the national unity and identity under common laws.
SEE also: http://www.ethics-commission.net




Hong Wu wrote:Just something to maybe add to the list of leftist oxymorons. In order for things to be diverse, they have to be different. If they're different, they're not the same and if they're not the same, they are by definition not completely equal with each other, right?

The best counter-argument I have been able to formulate to this is that diversity would lead to temporary inequality, which is supposed to be alleviated. I think however that this segways into another argument I made some time ago, which is that the metaphysics of progressivism has no feasible end in sight, thereby robbing it of any concept of the peak of all things (God, etc.) and therefore making every extant and possible being an inferior to future beings, creating an eternal chain of subservients.

Although very subtle, I do believe that this metaphysical presumption is vaguely realized through progressive's growing totalitarian tendencies.



Dear @Hong Wu
What you are pointing out is that equal inclusion
DOES NOT MEAN being all the same. You're right, it makes no sense.

When we treat people or groups with EQUAL RESPECT
and EQUAL REPRESENTATION, that means they will Represent THEMSELVES,
their own interests, their own beliefs, USING THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

So naturally this will be diverse, as unique as each individual is.

I would compare inclusion of diversity with working with the
FULL ORCHESTRA to play all parts of the symphony in harmony.

The Flutes will play completely different music, notes and key
from the Trumpets. And the DRUM part looks nothing like the other instruments.

These are all different. None are the same.

Yet in a musical composition, it is necessary to include and blend
ALL the instruments and their parts to make the whole, which is
GREATER than the sum of the parts.

Equal inclusion and respect for the role of each section,
each musician, and the purpose of each line of melody or harmony
are ALL important. NONE can be left out or the symphony is incomplete.

But that doesn't make the parts the SAME.
#15008085
Julian658 wrote:I cannot guess what you are thinking. Please tell me why the Cubans are nationalistic? The embargo? That does not explain nationalism in the rest of Latin America.


Because of US neo-imperialism, and the constant attacks on the island by the superpower.

The rest of LA is not as nationalist.

There is a paradox: Racism is much less today than in the past, but if you ask some black people they do not agree. Post racism PTSD is real-----just google.


This is off topic.

Racist in comparison to what? The utopic last stage of communism? As things go the mixture of races in Cuba get along just fine. Is it perfect? No!!


Since you are the one who made the claim, you should ask yourself what you meant by "racist".

I also know flag burners who think nationalism is the same as being a NAZI. So what? :D :D


Since you are the one who brought up people we knew, I assumed you knew if it was relevant and why.

Cubans have a national identity that is the glue that unites them. I am certain a Cuban college professor has different cultural values than a Cuban that has a blue collar job. Is that your point?


My point is that you are making unsupported claims about Cuba.

For example, you have yet to provide evidence for the claim that Cuba has one uniform culture.

I cannot read your mind. I can only guess that the government preaches nationalism by stating they are fighting the evil gringo empire 90 miles away to the north. That formula works every time to create nationalism.


I do not expect you to read my mind. I do expect you to have a basic knowledge of the subject being discussed.

For example, here you seem to be unaware of things like the Bay of Pigs invasion, the embargoes, the many assassination attempts on Castro, and other historical facts.

---------------

Unthinking Majority wrote:Leftists are so obsessed with Cuba. Takes 30 horrific communist regimes to crap out a Cuba which is at least semi-functional and yet tyrannical, and they think it's evidence of their utopian socialist dreams. Scandanavians live much better, people have freedom, and folks don't disappear in the night.


Ignoring all the incorrect myths you repeat about Cuba, I will address why we often discuss Cuba and not other countries that are also successful.

The first reason is that most critics of socialism are not even aware of socialism outside of the USSR and China, except for a bit of knowledge about Cuba.

Very few of these critics can intelligently discuss Allende or the FSLN or the Zapatistas.

The second reason is because there is a wealth of information about Cuba because it has lasted so long despite constant attack.
#15008102
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because of US neo-imperialism, and the constant attacks on the island by the superpower.


Agreed. I guessed correctly! Actually that was rather obvious.

The rest of LA is not as nationalist.


Yeah, right! Because you know Latin America so well. You have visited and lived in every Latin country.



Since you are the one who made the claim, you should ask yourself what you meant by "racist".


I like this definition:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and character traits are produced and transmitted by DNA. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control.

Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority.
AR

My point is that you are making unsupported claims about Cuba.


Dr. Gates is a scholar, a Harvard professor and he actually spent a lot of time in Cuba. And he is a left winger so his views are not biased. If you do not accept that you need to leave the echo chamber.

For example, you have yet to provide evidence for the claim that Cuba has one uniform culture.


OK, I think we are talking past each other. What do you mean by a uniform culture? What do you mean by multiculturalism? How is a uniform culture different from multiculturalism? What is the relationship between nationalism and culture?

I do not expect you to read my mind. I do expect you to have a basic knowledge of the subject being discussed.


Condescension is always welcomed in a debate! :D

For example, here you seem to be unaware of things like the Bay of Pigs invasion, the embargoes, the many assassination attempts on Castro, and other historical facts.


I have a Cuban family Duh!!
Condescension is always welcomed in a debate!

---------------



Ignoring all the incorrect myths you repeat about Cuba, I will address why we often discuss Cuba and not other countries that are also successful.

The first reason is that most critics of socialism are not even aware of socialism outside of the USSR and China, except for a bit of knowledge about Cuba.

Very few of these critics can intelligently discuss Allende or the FSLN or the Zapatistas.

The second reason is because there is a wealth of information about Cuba because it has lasted so long despite constant attack.[/quote]
#15008183
Julian658 wrote:Agreed. I guessed correctly! Actually that was rather obvious.

Yeah, right! Because you know Latin America so well. You have visited and lived in every Latin country.

I like this definition:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and character traits are produced and transmitted by DNA. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control.

Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority.
AR

Dr. Gates is a scholar, a Harvard professor and he actually spent a lot of time in Cuba. And he is a left winger so his views are not biased. If you do not accept that you need to leave the echo chamber.

OK, I think we are talking past each other. What do you mean by a uniform culture? What do you mean by multiculturalism? How is a uniform culture different from multiculturalism? What is the relationship between nationalism and culture?

Condescension is always welcomed in a debate! :D

I have a Cuban family Duh!!
Condescension is always welcomed in a debate!


Have a good one.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Yeah I'm sure from all the actors operating in Syr[…]

EU-BREXIT

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Art[…]

"what bit isn't true" All of it. It's[…]

Elijah Cummings Dead...

Oh, shit. Serves me right for not reading the nam[…]