Multicultural versus monocultural societies and countries

[Viking]

I agree, in principle.

However, monoculture is impossible without dramatic alterations (likely engineered) to the cognitive structure of the human brain.

Simplest answer: hive mind.

I was thinking slightly less futuristic/theoretical. Diversity of sort tends to be a positive; people having different perspectives makes it more likely that at least someone will understand whatever. I don't think that multicultural is more likely to increase this kind of positive diversity, however; I think it's just as likely to increase partisan thinking.

I'm not going to bother with catching up in the Ukraine thread, but the example you used in your post is an exemplar of multiculturalism like a suicidal person is the picture of health.

Jughashvili's ethnicity was the icing on the cake. The point is that the USSR was highly multicultural; it comprised distinct cultural entities as diverse as Poland and Tajikistan.

In the interim, therefore, the embrace of multiculturalism is far less harmful than attempts to impose some formulated culture.

I am not interested in imposing culture. Personally, I am not very fond of culture itself. It's frustrating enough already having to deal with the silliness of my own culture; having to deal with the silliness of other cultures in addition all the more so. I am an individualist. I embrace culture to the extent that it seems pragmatically necessary.

No, no, no. Without multicultural societies we'd still be stuck with plain turnips for dinner. It's the immigrants with their funny smelling/looking but tasty foods that prompt us to improve our culinary lot; and it is much the same with art, technology, literature and architecture.

Asian cuisine is undeniably richer for the introduction of the chili, and we in Europe and America are doubtlessly better off for the introduction of Asian cuisine in our life. Gandaharan art would not nearly be as interesting or as beautiful to look at if it weren't for that special combination of Indian traditions fused with the Hellenistic sense of style and technical refinement.

Long ago, the potato came to this country. It didn't come with people from the Americas. Currently, the Llama is appearing more and more as a farm animal here, and I it was doubt immigrants from South America who first brought it in. Today, I can buy Korean mobile phones in the nearest electrical shop, and I don't need to have a Korean immigrant move into my home in return.

You don't need representatives of a culture to come over to stay in your country in order for your culture to absorb parts of their culture. You don't need the rest of their culture either.

The problem with Monoculture at the most fundamental level is even within Native Ethnic groups there are usually more than 1 distinct cultural group and to implement a monoculture you will need to suppress the other cultural identities - this is entirely possible and many cultures have dabbled in it (the Kingdom of England's suppression of Welsh culture for example) however the methods aren't often very "tasteful" and the results can backfire spectacularly...

In the other thread you used Syria as an example of a failed Multicultural state - id argue in fact the opposite - Assad's regime were attempting to instil a monoculture state by suppressing the rival cultural group (the Sunni Muslims in this case) which in combination with their Authoritarian methods lead to the uprisings and the now brutal civil war... ironically should the Sunnis win they will probably try the same thing in reverse...

From what I've read, Assad's state was/is secular.

I don't argue for suppression of culture. It's quite the opposite, I think that cultures trying to suppress (and generally fight) each other is almost an inevitability of multiculturalism and one of the reasons that I oppose it.

[Sir Moody]

I don't argue for suppression of culture. It's quite the opposite, I think that cultures trying to suppress (and generally fight) each other is almost an inevitability of multiculturalism and one of the reasons that I oppose it.

so what do you suggest then? a mass break up of currently existing countries to match cultural divisions? surely you realise that isn't even feasible...

[Montmorency]

Ok, Viking: could you define "culture" and "multiculturalism", because you're using them in a slightly confusing way.

I am not interested in imposing culture. Personally, I am not very fond of culture itself. It's frustrating enough already having to deal with the silliness of my own culture; having to deal with the silliness of other cultures all the more so. I am an individualist. I embrace culture to the extent that it seems pragmatically necessary.

Obviously, it isn't possible to have no culture; we create culture merely by existing. Even a child raised by wolves develops culture.

It's not about pragmatism but cognitive structure. We can no more not have culture (without modifying the aforementioned) than we can not have the sense of there being a here and now (which can be temporarily modified with, for instance, psychotropics).

[Viking]

so what do you suggest then? a mass break up of currently existing countries to match cultural divisions? surely you realise that isn't even feasible...

Primarily, I am thinking about not creating more multiculture than what we already have.

Countries are breaking up in significant numbers due to cultural and ethnical differences. Just in very recent history we have: Kosovo from Serbia, East Timor from Indonesia, South Sudan from Sudan.

As unrecognised\less successful examples there are Kurdistan (from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria), Abkhazia and South-Ossetia from Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.

There's two views on multiculturalism: The one where cultural groups live side-by-side in some weird utopian hand-holding exercise (which, if you couldn't tell, is a false view mostly held by people who are critics of multiculturalism) and the far more correct notion that you accept people who are different from you, and over time everyone loses their culture, and a new culture is born fused from the two. I wouldn't want to live in an America without the white hip hop artists and freaking taco bell--"Mexican" food for poor white people. By that same token, I'm sure in a few generations Americans will take for granted that they don't get sunburned as easily, because they'll have a lot more melanin going on. Multiculturalism has benefits, and though it has downsides (especially when integration is resisted by either side) they are ostensibly temporary.

Multiculturalism is when two or more cultures live side by side, whether with friendship or hostility between them. You assume that different cultures will merge eventually. I don't think it's quite that simple.

If Usanians of European and African descents had mixed properly, a melanin boost from Mexicans would not have been that "necessary". The fact that these two groups still are comparably separated seems to me to indicate that the merger you assume will take place between all cultures is not something that can be taken for granted.

Now this is all contrary to the anti-multicultural stance that immigrants to a country--if allowed at all--should conform to the needs of the host country entirely. This is a hollow view, unless you're willing to enforce it with actual force, because only under the threat of force will people abandon their ways completely for something as shallow as, say, "American" culture. If one isn't willing to consider force, then one has to admit this point of view is absurd. Which is why it is almost exclusively the province of bigots who don't think things through all the way.

I don't think anything should be enforced, which is why I in return oppose mass-immigration; it's hard to deal with adequately. The US is a bit of a special example, since it is a really big and strongly federalised country, which alters a lot of the mechanisms considerably compared to the average country on this planet.

Ok, Viking: could you define "culture" and "multiculturalism", because you're using them in a slightly confusing way.



Obviously, it isn't possible to have no culture; we create culture merely by existing. Even a child raised by wolves develops culture.

It's not about pragmatism but cognitive structure. We can no more not have culture (without modifying the aforementioned) than we can not have the sense of there being a here and now (which can be temporarily modified with, for instance, psychotropics).

Culture is what is shared between people on a larger scale. The opposite of culture isn't really no culture (i.e. nothing), but idiosyncrasy. This definition seems completely compatible with definitions provided several places, like here:

the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

[Sir Moody]

Primarily, I am thinking about not creating more multiculture than what we already have.

Countries are breaking up in significant numbers due to cultural and ethnical differences. Just in very recent history we have: Kosovo from Serbia, East Timor from Indonesia, South Sudan from Sudan.

As unrecognised\less successful examples there are Kurdistan (from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria), Abkhazia and South-Ossetia from Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.

and how exactly do you propose doing that without clamping down on cultural influences? it isn't as simple as stopping immigration - you will need to cut off the Internet (which is the biggest cultural exchange in History), Cut off all Foreign Media sources and cut all International trade...

It just isn't feasible without MASSIVE Authoritarian actions... and even then probably wouldn't work

[Tellos Athenaios]

Long ago, the potato came to this country. It didn't come with people from the Americas. Currently, the Llama is appearing more and more as a farm animal here, and I it was doubt immigrants from South America who first brought it in. Today, I can buy Korean mobile phones in the nearest electrical shop, and I don't need to have a Korean immigrant move into my home in return.

You don't need representatives of a culture to come over to stay in your country in order for your culture to absorb parts of their culture. You don't need the rest of their culture either.

Ah but you see, the potato did not come to your country without some society somewhere turning multicultural. Same with the llamas and the cellphones. Truly monocultural societies will stagnate or at least advance at a much slower rate than others, since they are unable to benefit from the advances of other cultures without engaging in some form of cultural exchange (which precludes retaining a monoculture). You cannot have writing, for example, without it fundamentally altering your culture.

Unless your argument is really all "NIMBY", I'm afraid it doesn't hold water.

And finally, as plenty of farmers have found out to their cost: a monoculture may be easy and efficient in the short run but it will leave you to starve to death in the long run. That's why until late in the 20th century China was regularly plagued by famine as a matter of course whereas it took the introduction of the potato and severe mismanagement to trigger it in Ireland. I would contend that the same also holds for culture in the people sense: a monoculture leaves you ill prepared for a changing modern world, and more likely than not at some point your erratic and unprepared behaviour when confronted with something that is so far beyond your grasp will lead social studies the world over to name a particular human folly after it. All it needs is some reference to the subject of the culture shock... say 'cargo' ?

[Pannonian]

Ah but you see, the potato did not come to your country without some society somewhere turning multicultural. Same with the llamas and the cellphones. Truly monocultural societies will stagnate or at least advance at a much slower rate than others, since they are unable to benefit from the advances of other cultures without engaging in some form of cultural exchange (which precludes retaining a monoculture). You cannot have writing, for example, without it fundamentally altering your culture.

Unless your argument is really all "NIMBY", I'm afraid it doesn't hold water.

And finally, as plenty of farmers have found out to their cost: a monoculture may be easy and efficient in the short run but it will leave you to starve to death in the long run. That's why until late in the 20th century China was regularly plagued by famine as a matter of course whereas it took the introduction of the potato and severe mismanagement to trigger it in Ireland. I would contend that the same also holds for culture in the people sense: a monoculture leaves you ill prepared for a changing modern world, and more likely than not at some point your erratic and unprepared behaviour when confronted with something that is so far beyond your grasp will lead social studies the world over to name a particular human folly after it. All it needs is some reference to the subject of the culture shock... say 'cargo' ?

For an example of what happens to strict monocultures, see what happened to the greatest and most powerful empire in the world after they enforced their extreme internalism. The monocultural Chinese came under pressure from and were bullied by the multicultural Europeans. Their self-admitted turning point came when a faction resolved to take on board the best of what they found in British culture, and using a British colony as their springboard, won power in and proceeded to modernise China.