Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't say it quite that way, but I somewhat sympathize with your central point - if I understand it. To the extent that "multiculturalism" for some people means trying to adjust social policies in a way that more or less forces people from diverse cultures to intermingle in small communities, I would agree that multiculturalism sucks. I have the TED video in mind that I posted yesterday. [http://www.ted.com/talks/wade_davis_on_endangered_cultures]
For the earth as a whole, I think multiculturalism is a strength and I agree with Wade Davis (the TED presenter) that, on an international level, we should try to protect the cultures of indigenous people. I also think that allowing people to maintain local cultures within a country like the US is a form of good multiculturalism. This, of course, is just the opposite of slamming multiple cultures together in a way that forces them to completely integrate ("salad" = good; "melting pot" = not good).
Concerning American culture: I think that any immigrant wanting to become a citizen should agree to certain minimum American cultural standards, such as our foundational constitutional rights and, knowing that we are a "salad bowl" culture, every immigrant should know that they need to approach the inherent cultural diversity of America with tolerance. Personally, I also believe that every immigrant should know English, or at least promise to learn the English language. Maintaining local languages is great, but learning the common language should be one of the minimal expectations.
(BTW, I'm puzzled about why I can't get the TED video to be embedded, rather than just a link. Am I doing something wrong? Or is embedding just not possible for some videos?)
It's the unfortunate truth that we have become a salad bowl rather than a melting pot. The melting pot is much more harmonious and uniting and less divisive. I don't care what language or culture one chooses to practice at home but out in mainstream blend in don't try to stand out. It would be nice if "immigrants" embraced the English language out in mainstream also.
According to a study conducted by Sujin K. Horwitz and Irwin B. Horwitz for the "Journal of Management," diversity has been a contributing factor to the creativity and innovation exhibited by teams. This is because diversity resists conformity. Team diversity is a requirement, not an option.
Jewish people are ALWAYS for diversity in all countries except Israel, of course.
It's the unfortunate truth that we have become a salad bowl rather than a melting pot. The melting pot is much more harmonious and uniting and less divisive. I don't care what language or culture one chooses to practice at home but out in mainstream blend in don't try to stand out. It would be nice if "immigrants" embraced the English language out in mainstream also.
I will say this, even though I'm a huge critic of diversity and multiculturalism. I am equally a critic of nationalism. Because nationalism tends to mean "forced" or "coerced" conformity. It means to sacrifice your individualism for the benefit of the collective.
Now, I have nothing against collectivism itself. I think collectivism on some level will always exist, and that it is actually a good thing(families/communities/etc). But I don't believe collectivism can ever work on a "large-scale". And always devolves into corruption and exploitation by the "political/ruling classes".
The only thing that ever holds this kind of collectivism together, is a common enemy. Basically the belief that we must stay together or we will all lose.
Fear and greed are the only things that can unite diverse people into the same political community. It is how it has always been.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think this statement misses the mark in an interesting and informative way. We don't need to champion diversity in sports because it has mostly already happened. And I'd say that the results reinforce one of the central reasons to believe in "strength in diversity". Suppose you had two NFL leagues, one of which allowed non-whites, and the other did not. Which league do you think would be most likely to win the most super bowls?
I'm sure that some of you will say that this is not a fair comparison. In your minds, "diversity" probably means that the NFL would have to meet quotas for hiring Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, whites, blacks, handicapped people, mentally retarded people, LGBTQs, and women. If this is what the advocates of diversity actually meant by 'diversity' then I would agree that diversity is not a strength. But I think this is a misrepresentation of what diversity means to most of the people who advocate diversity. This approach to arguing about diversity is mostly a straw man argument. (I say "mostly" because I'm sure you probably can find some instances in which over-zealous advocates do push for inappropriate quota systems in inappropriate contexts.)
In certain limited contexts, some types of quota systems might be appropriate, but generally speaking, diversity is not about meeting quotas, and it's not about picking under-qualified people to do jobs. The advocacy of diversity is, among other things, an attitude focused on allowing diverse people to compete on a level playing field. In other words, don't automatically exclude people from certain realms of life just because they belong to a particular race, religion, lifestyles, etc., without some just cause for doing so - e.g., you could exclude men from women's sports teams; you would not have to screen-test blacks for playing the role of J.F.K in a historical film (although if a film maker wanted to cast, say, a black woman in the role of J.F.K., freedom of speech would certainly allow it); you could prevent convicted pedophiles from running daycare centers, etc.).
What's tricky, however, is that getting people on to a level playing field can be a lot harder than it might at first appear. Historically entrenched social attitudes can often make level playing fields impossible to find, especially since a lot of these entrenched attitudes are virtually invisible to those who are not disadvantaged by them. Education is a perfect example. If a certain category of people is consistently undereducated relative to another category, then the playing field can never be truly level, even if you are careful to never exclude qualified candidates on account of race, or whatever. If a system is inherently unfair toward a certain population of people, then the number of qualified candidates for a position will never reflect the proportion of that population. Suppose, for example, that for some reason black kids were almost never able to play sports throughout their high school and college educations. The NFL might have an open policy for try-outs, but qualified black candidates would be rare. This lack of diversity at the foundations of social life would mean that an awful lot of potential for sports heroes would be wasted. Obviously this example is somewhat absurd in the context of sports, but there are other realms of life where it is not so absurd. Some entrenched social biases are subtle to the point of being nearly invisible, but they are nonetheless real.
Support for diversity (the real stuff, not the image portrayed by the purveyors of straw man arguments against it) is not about forcing quotas even when it means less qualified people get jobs. Diversity is about finding and weeding out unfair discrimination so that all types of folks are actually on a reasonably level playing field when it comes to pursing their dreams. The strength of diversity, in this sense, is the strength that comes from letting the inherent strengths of a population come to light - in essentially the same way that allowing blacks in the NFL allows for stronger teams. If the NFL didn't allow blacks to compete, or if somehow society were to prevent black kids from playing sports in school, then a lot of potential NFL superstars inherent in the black population would go unrecognized.
Excellent analysis!
The United States of America provides many examples of reaching towards & then accomplishing a 'more level playing field.' I believe the intention to do so was stated right from our beginnings, in the Preamble, in the stated desire to 'form a more perfect Union':
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
O'course it's a process & no ONE thing takes the place of a process. Take fr'instance voting rights as an example. Or the de facto quota system, in place for many years, of holding a Government seat? Where the 'quota' was 100% white men. Let's face it, then & now, there are many reasons why holding office is highly sought-after, a large one is the seat confers the ability to direct policy.
In addition to my previous post, here are some of my thoughts and I KNOW these words are not politically correct, but I will try not to offend a group of people with these words.
In the art world, people seem to love the word "diversity". But in reality, i found the term "diversity" particularly troubling because I find the word to be a racially coded term which exacts all sorts of confusing sentimentalities and hidden agendas. For example, it is a proven fact that many minorities only visiting an art exhibit when the exhibition featured artists from their own cultural or ethnic backgrounds.
In my opinion, All culture is connected, especially when it comes to art which is an universal language. Minority visitors to the museum should not be just niche or annual event visitors. Instead, many museums and art galleries are doing their best to ensure that visitors of minority group are long term invested stakeholders with unique set of values whose narratives are celebrated as equally as important and complimentary to the system of values which permeate the traditional white mainstream museum.
Being mixed taught me one thing and I found to be the absolute truth. There is no such thing as a racial minority. In fact, our racial identities are becoming more complex and multiracial as a multitude of racial groups are growing in numbers across the country. I see no reasons why a museum should have this thing called "XXXXX (insert a certain race here) artists week". or "XXXXX (insert a certain race here) heritage week".
True “diversity†means that the minority visitors would need to feel that their very presence did not constitute the diversity. Therefore, this whole "I am proud because I am xxxxx (insert a race here)" is rather ridiculous.
There is certain danger when "diversity" is emphasized. When you stop seeing yourself as a minority, it is when others stop seeing you as a minority.
Not true, Lily. At least in America, there is nothing I can do to keep myself from being seen as a minority.
The United States of America provides many examples of reaching towards & then accomplishing a 'more level playing field.' I believe the intention to do so was stated right from our beginnings, in the Preamble, in the stated desire to 'form a more perfect Union':
Are you high? I don't know how you can go from the Constitution's preamble, to "diversity and multiculturalism is good". I mean, weren't the founding fathers racist bigots who kept slaves and thought blacks, indians, and women were practically subhuman?
I suppose you can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
Not true, Lily. At least in America, there is nothing I can do to keep myself from being seen as a minority.
What I never understand about people like yourself is that, when I think people are treating me unfairly, I think to myself "Why in the hell do I want to be around that person? Why would I want to share a country with an *******? How about I just leave and setup my own country?".
You on the other hand seem to think that when people think poorly of you, that you can somehow force those people to no longer think poorly of you. Or possibly, you seem interested in using the government in some way to punish those people for ever thinking badly of you to begin with.
You seem to be obsessed with either revenge or power, rather than freedom of mutual respect.
I mean, I know ISIS thinks I'm a scumbag simply because I'm a non-Muslim and an American. But should I really care? As long as they stay over there, and I remain over here, then why would I care what they think?
I guess what I'm saying is, I never understand why blacks and other minorities aren't anarchists/secessionists.
I mean, there are nearly 200 countries in the world. Is that the right number? Should there be more countries or less? Why do countries even exist? What is a nation anyway?
What I never understand about people like yourself is that, when I think people are treating me unfairly, I think to myself "Why in the hell do I want to be around that person? Why would I want to share a country with an *******? How about I just leave and setup my own country?".
You on the other hand seem to think that when people think poorly of you, that you can somehow force those people to no longer think poorly of you. Or possibly, you seem interested in using the government in some way to punish those people for ever thinking badly of you to begin with.
You seem to be obsessed with either revenge or power, rather than freedom of mutual respect.
I mean, I know ISIS thinks I'm a scumbag simply because I'm a non-Muslim and an American. But should I really care? As long as they stay over there, and I remain over here, then why would I care what they think?
I guess what I'm saying is, I never understand why blacks and other minorities aren't anarchists/secessionists.
I mean, there are nearly 200 countries in the world. Is that the right number? Should there be more countries or less? Why do countries even exist? What is a nation anyway?
In all fairness, I think you are speculating. Even the poster Lucario was disagreeing with me, I understand fully what he was trying to say.
Like I said many many times, we are who we are through experiences. Based on many many MANY of Lucario's thoughtful, fair and balanced posts here on city data, I have no reasons to think "poorly" of him.
Lucario is obviously not obsessed with revenge and power, this is just insanely ridiculous.
Are you high? I don't know how you can go from the Constitution's preamble, to "diversity and multiculturalism is good". I mean, weren't the founding fathers racist bigots who kept slaves and thought blacks, indians, and women were practically subhuman?
I suppose you can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true.
The founding fathers were victims of assorted mental blindspots that we, looking back, find it hard to imagine. Think of neurological pathologies where an otherwise sane and fully rational person unconsciously confabulates elaborate explanations for how the arm (that we can all clearly see is her arm) is not her arm - it is her sister's arm, etc. She is rational except for this one little aspect of life - the identity of her left arm. The problem with blindspots is that you can't recognize them as blindspots.
But the founding fathers did, nevertheless, demonstrate that they understood the value of diversity, and they designed a political system that serves to overcome blindspots over time by allowing and encouraging diversity. Free speech, the separation of church and state, state's rights, and the motto on the Statue of Liberty (which came 100 years later, but I think is consistent with the mindset of the founding fathers) all indicate a basic belief that there is strength to be gained by letting diverse ideas and ways of life comingle under the general canopy of a free nation. Advancements like the 14th and 19th Amendments are proof-in-the-pudding that their ideas worked. They might not have specifically intended for blacks and women to vote and hold office, but they did purposefully sow the sorts of seeds that could grow to overcome the blindspots of their own generation.
I would also point out that all of these ideas imply an appreciation for the "salad bowl" version of multiculturalism. They certainly understood that there is strength in unity, but they clearly did not push for a homogeneous ("melting pot") society. They protected the core values of individual liberties, the rights of free assembly, etc., so that a salad-bowl style of diversity could survive, and thereby help the nation as the whole (the unity in e pluribus unim) to maintain its strength.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
