Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Multiculturalism: pros and cons

   
Multiculturalism: pros and cons

I'm splitting this off from the President Trump thread, both because it's taken up more than enough off-topic space there, and because I think it's a pressing issue that's worthy of discussion in it's own right.

I'm going to list what appear to me to be general perspectives. I'm am operating under the definition of multiculturalism where a nation contains multiple ethnicities and/or cultures. These are entirely my own personal interpretations, and feel free to correct me:

Camp numero uno: Multiculturalism is the future.

This group believes that multiculturalism is not a thing that can be prevented, but is instead a natural force to be managed/contained. The basic tenet here is that cultures will blend and mix within all nations, and it is the duty of all nations to manage such a process in as peaceful a manner as possible. I fall into this camp.

Camp le deux: Multiculturalism is the past.

This group believes that multiculturalism is a thing that has always existed throughout history, and the best way to manage it is by fomenting strong national identities that blaze across cultures.

Camp der dritte: Multiculturalism must be avoided.

I don't know if we have anyone here advocating this viewpoint, but I think it's worth pointing out: This group thinks that cultures should remain separate, and not be allowed to mix.

Again, I recognize that my definitions of both multiculturalism and the various viewpoints on it are likely flawed; please correct me in the discussion below.

I'm not sure what culture is.

But I would like to address this from the other thread:

Quote:
Even as close as the Industrial Revolution we had "globalised" multiculturalism, when Europe developed machines for production and traded from Africa, to South America, to India, China, Japan - all four corners of the globe. That's what made Europe so massively wealthy
I think that ignores the other things Europe did to make themselves massively wealthy. Namely subjugating people and pillaging resources like precious metals and gemstones were going out of style.

Even the trade part doesn't make sense, as that trade was conducted at gunpoint. Why, in the Opium War, the English were so concerned about their silver going to a country that did not want to do trade with them that they declared war on the Qing Dynasty and forced them to cede ports to the British so that trade could be conducted.

Putting this in spoilers, as it's completely off-topic.



As for multiculturalism: it always has been and always will be. If the cultures are compatible, I can see great benefits coming from it, but only if it is allowed to take its slow, natural course. If forced or hurried along by naive do-gooders in government it will end in calamity, as we are seeing in Europe today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whytebio View Post
Right off the bat with "hur hur europe was only wealthy because they were thieves and mean and stole it from other people they were oppressive to". This nonsense speaks of a viewpoint that see's two people, one wealthy and one poor, and concludes that the person who is wealthy only got that way because they stole it from someone else and the poor person is only poor because the wealthy person exploited them.

No. Industrial Revolution happened before the Scramble for Africa and the Opium Wars. The Scramble for Africa was only possible because Europe had technological superiority, and its technological superiority allowed it to out-produce any other continent in the world on a massive scale allowing them to dominate most markets they went into because no one else could compete. From textiles to agriculture to steel manufacturing, Europe produced more of it for cheaper and no one else could compete. Before the Industrial Revolution, Europeans had no hope of colonising Africa (one of the only successful examples of such was what would become South Africa and that started as a trading colony for the Dutch between the netherlands and india), because the natives had a massive numerical advantage and the myriad of diseases on the continent made any attempt at doing so a fools errand.
I see that you are familiar with the Scramble for Africa! Good, good. Now tell me, are you familiar with the Age of Discovery? The phrase "empire on which the sun never sets" is most famously associated with the British during the post-Industrial Revolution colonization of much of the globe, but it was originally used to refer to the Spanish Empire, which became vast and wealthy off of colonization of the Americas. The Portuguese also made a large empire for themselves in this time. Brazil was a crown jewel in their empire, iirc.

The impetus to "explore" was driven by the economic theory of mercantilism, which held that countries should accumulate monetary reserves (gold), form colonies to secure resources, and seek to balance exports and imports. Basically, get lots of material wealth and keep as much of it in the country as possible. It was highly inefficient and incentized unethical behavior, which is why Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, actually. Free markets were his antidote to colonialism, tyranny, injustice, etc. (A pity that never happened.)

This all occurred before the Industrial Revolution. I will happily and confidently assert that part of the reason why European powers were rich and wealthy was not because they had earned it through fair trade, but through scurrilous means.

Quote:
Likewise, China was the top dog of the Asian continent and no single European country could hope to defeat them in a naval war in their own backyard...unless that nation had superior ships, training and equipment, which the British did have because they'd been benefiting from the Industrial Revolution for decades before those wars even happened.
I note you're not actually defending your original assertion that "Europe developed machines for production and traded from Africa, to South America, to India, China, Japan - all four corners of the globe. That's what made Europe so massively wealthy". May I take this as a tacit concession that my criticism of the British Empire's gunboat diplomacy is correct?

Quote:
The Industrial Revolution was the genesis of Western power and dominance into our modern times. I understand that acknowledging that would require giving the Europeans credit instead of just painting them as bloodthirsty thieves, as is so popular these days, but that's the way it is.
I'm surprised that I provoked such a strong response with my reminder that the foundation of European power was blood and suffering. Still, I must be fair. Yes, the achievements of the Europeans were great. This cannot be denied. Even He Who Must Not Be Named did great things – terrible, yes, but great. In the future, shall I correct the record on Hitler, Mao, and Stalin as well? After all, we must give the devil his due instead of painting them as bloodthirsty tyrants, as is so popular these days.

I mean, say what you will about Pol Pot, the fellow had a terrific work ethic.

Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

You know if you're going to argue against the guy when he's defending capitalism, you could do better than to pick a socialist and two communists in an attempt to paint the capitalists as the bad guys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber_Goddess View Post
Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

You know if you're going to argue against the guy when he's defending capitalism, you could do better than to pick a socialist and two communists in an attempt to paint the capitalists as the bad guys.
Right off the bat with "hur hur dictators were bad hombres and were mean oppressive to people". This nonsense speaks of a viewpoint that see's two people, one with power, and one without, and concludes the one with power was there because he usurped power and the one without had power stolen from him.

People have different values, assumptions, social norms, and so on. That's life. Some people can learn to accept those differences, not necessarily thinking all is good and equal, but can learn to not feel personally attacked by the "other". Some people don't accept those differences, and decide to lash out. However, on Mythweavers we all agreed to follow the site's rules including this one:

Quote:
Don't be a hater.
C'mon now. Don't post defamatory, abusive, bullying, harassing, racist, hateful, or violent material. Refrain from ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, homophobia, and personal attacks when here. This is the kind of thing that should go without saying.
So even if someone here personally doesn't like multiculturalism, they'd best learn to put those thoughts to the side and accept our membership who come from all walks of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Right off the bat with "hur hur dictators were is a bad hombres and were mean oppressive to people". This nonsense speaks of a viewpoint that see's two people, one with power, and one without, and concludes the one with power was there because he usurped power and the one without had power stolen from him.
I'm just saying, look up some the stuff the East India Trading Company or United Fruit LTD companies did. That'll give you plenty of material.

Edit: Wait did you just accuse me of being anti-dictator? The ONE person on this forum who's brave enough to openly identify as Authoritarian?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber_Goddess View Post
I'm just saying, look up some the stuff the East India Trading Company or United Fruit LTD companies did. That'll give you plenty of material.
Eh, the problem is that he would say the British East India Company did good things. (Even though much of Britain despised them, including Adam Smith.)

I'm just trying to see how far down the rabbit hole he is willing to go.

Putting this in spoilers, as it's completely off-topic.





 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-02-26 09:00:10am local time
Myth-Weavers Status