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 didn't know that Americans were obsessed with diversity. What I have noticed is that some people - mostly conservatives - often criticize others who appreciate a diverse population. To them, diversity is clearly a bad thing. They don't like people who are different from themselves, I guess.
I am not ethnocentric but culture-centric (if that is a term). Regardless of a few mound-builders, most native societies were very undeveloped hunter/gatherer societies. I could care less if the term savagery is not pc. You take multi-culturalism way too far when you are to fearful to even suggest Western culture is much more desirable to live in for most than that of the American Indians.
Please inform me how the North American natives were a "great" civilization or were homogeneous in any way because no one has yet explained that.
Yes your ethnocentric and culture-centric is not a term
ethnocentricism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to their own particular ethnic group or culture. If you believe that your culture is civilized and other people culture is savage your ethnocentric. No one have to imform on how North American natives were great it's not your position to judge.
Quote:
Are you really trying to compare mound dwellings with the Pyramids, Great Wall, European castles, or even the pyramids of the Central American Indians to the South which all were created during the period of tribalism in North America? It's obviously not about race since all of humanity at one point was hunter/gatherer tribes. My theory is they were simply too isolated and the fact that North America had so many trees in the East and so many range animals convenient for eating in the plains that it just wasn't necessary to develop agriculture which may be the first step towards civilization.
Again ethnocentricism! and your growning in the white man burden belief use to justify colonialism, and again you don't know what native American culture could had turn into, even if native American wouldn't change there still no justification for colonialism. And dude alot agricultural practice came from Native Americans.
Quote:
Colonization happened in the past and requires no justification, defense or apologies. The Natives had every right to fight the invaders but failed.
Lastly, can you point me to which clue that leads you to believe the native Americans were on the cusp of advancement? I know there is no proof they weren't but as I'm sure you know it is impossible to prove that.
Mississippian culture
You aren't psychic you can't prove or disprove that. I brought up the Mississippian cultures to show you that native Americans cultures had reach levels above hunter/gatherer tribes on there own and if that happen, it could had went further some Native american tribes were even developing written languages. Then they could had contact other Amerindians over time, which were closer to there culture than western culture was. Now colonization happened in the past, you say there no justifacation but your a self describe avowed anti-multiculturalist so if Native Americans celabrate there heritage you would be against that even through your in North America. Then you have the belief that you can dictate what's allowed and what's not allowed in America but the culture your representing is not indigenous to North America either. You also said native americans fought the invaders but failed, it seem like your trying use that as justification it self.
Quote:
I pointed out that possible ethnic link because another poster kept throwing around the term people of color to describe everyone not white and I was simply pointing out that "white" is a bit more complex than just thinking of WASPs.
A comment about race =/= being racist. It's interesting my post led you to believe I care about race more than culture, but the reality couldn't be further from the truth. I'm an avowed anti-multiculturalist but I have no problem with racial plurality.
I agree with the people of color thing it dosen't make sense but that along with the label for people who are non-white as ethnic, as if whites are ethnic free is also off. You brought up the Indus valley which isn't even western culture. Race is nothing more than a idiom word for background people care about there heritage, there background, so with you saying, you don't care about race when you, your self even point out that the Greeks and Europeans where white creates a straw man. The fact is you believe that you being white has nothing to do with your feeling about cultures that were created by whites is again a strawman. Where the ethnocetrism comes in is, you believe your background is above others. Which is going to cause conflict along racial lines.
I didn't know that Americans were obsessed with diversity. What I have noticed is that some people - mostly conservatives - often criticize others who appreciate a diverse population. To them, diversity is clearly a bad thing. They don't like people who are different from themselves, I guess.
Interesting viewpoint, but how has ethnic diversity affected the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote in California?
Yes your ethnocentric and culture-centric is not a term
ethnocentricism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to their own particular ethnic group or culture. If you believe that your culture is civilized and other people culture is savage your ethnocentric. No one have to imform on how North American natives were great it's not your position to judge.
Did you just discover the term ethnocentrism in your college sociology class or something? I could care less if I esteem my own culture. I think our viewpoints are borderline incompatible. And did my making up a term really deserve 4 smacks?
And I'm not judging the native Americans against my own culture, I'm comparing it against Arabic, Persian, South Asian, East Asian, and all other cultures of the time-frame. And I find it quite backwards.
[quote=chiatldal;12206449]
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
Mississippian culture
You aren't psychic you can't prove or disprove that. I brought up the Mississippian cultures to show you that native Americans cultures had reach levels above hunter/gatherer tribes on there own and if that happen, it could had went further some Native american tribes were even developing written languages. Then they could had contact other Amerindians over time, which were closer to there culture than western culture was. Now colonization happened in the past, you say there no justifacation but your a self describe avowed anti-multiculturalist so if Native Americans celabrate there heritage you would be against that even through your in North America. Then you have the belief that you can dictate what's allowed and what's not allowed in America but the culture your representing is not indigenous to North America either. You also said native americans fought the invaders but failed, it seem like your trying use that as justification it self.
I can barely make sense of this little gem of a paragraph but from what I can gather it's a lot of could-ofs, would-ofs, and should-ofs. They didn't occur, so we will never know! But I have thousands of years to support my argument. I've been trying to be reasonable with you but you seem to want to make this an attack.
Oh great wikipedia painting of the Mississippi Culture. That's some stunning proof there! How does that artist's impression stack up against the real wonders of the world that still exist?
And I could care less if native Americans celebrate their heritage as long as it's done outside the political realm. My problem is mostly with identity politics.
Get a clue man, the Native Americans encountered by the evil white man had killed off groups before them, which in turn killed off whoever was before them. Colonialism was wrong, but I have no guilt over it as I didn't participate in it and no culture in the human history has been perfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
You brought up the Indus valley which isn't even western culture. Race is nothing more than a idiom word for background people care about there heritage, there background, so with you saying, you don't care about race when you, your self even point out that the Greeks and Europeans where white creates a straw man. The fact is you believe that you being white has nothing to do with your feeling about cultures that were created by whites is again a strawman. Where the ethnocetrism comes in is, you believe your background is above others. Which is going to cause conflict along racial lines.
Do you know what a straw man fallacy means? You completely read my text out of context. I drew the race-based link to show how ridiculous that posters' comment was-how many times do i have to explain this to you?
And again, I'm anti-multicultural because I believe it is difficult for a nation to be stable and prosper if it's divided. The US has historically been united in a boiling pot but now the proper analogy is the salad bowl. My concern is that if this multi-culturalist ideal is pushed too far we could end up like the Balkans. It has nothing to do with one culture being much "better" than another" but is a matter of simple practicality.
It has nothing to do with believing my own culture is superior to all others. Exploring foreign lands and cultures is my passion.
P.S. If we're going to continue arguing can you be less tiresome with the overuse of the ethnocentric accusations? I don't know how to convey to you any more that I'm not ashamed of admitting that I want my own culture to be the pre-eminent one in this country. So let me guess, I assume you'll try to turn this into race again. Which, by the way is the meaning of the straw man argument.
P.P.S After reading your post again I'm shocked we agree on something. People's definitions of race are logically flawed and scientifically lacking as well. When someone says people of color or wanting to eat ethnic food I want to slap them.
Did you just discover the term ethnocentrism in your college sociology class or something? I could care less if I esteem my own culture. I think our viewpoints are borderline incompatible. And did my making up a term really deserve 4 smacks?
And I'm not judging the native Americans against my own culture, I'm comparing it against Arabic, Persian, South Asian, East Asian, and all other cultures of the time-frame. And I find it quite backwards.
I can barely make sense of this little gem of a paragraph but from what I can gather it's a lot of could-ofs, would-ofs, and should-ofs. They didn't occur, so we will never know! But I have thousands of years to support my argument. I've been trying to be reasonable with you but you seem to want to make this an attack.
Oh great wikipedia painting of the Mississippi Culture. That's some stunning proof there! How does that artist's impression stack up against the real wonders of the world that still exist?
And I could care less if native Americans celebrate their heritage as long as it's done outside the political realm. My problem is mostly with identity politics.
Get a clue man, the Native Americans encountered by the evil white man had killed off groups before them, which in turn killed off whoever was before them. Colonialism was wrong, but I have no guilt over it as I didn't participate in it and no culture in the human history has been perfect.
Im never said you should feel guilty
I was refering to now! your trying dictate to people about who's culture is not accept when your culture is not indigenous either. So your trying bulid off the legacy Colonialism. Also you said I want my own culture to be the pre-eminent one in this country whichis identity politics? hypocrite.
Quote:
Do you know what a straw man fallacy means? You completely read my text out of context. I drew the race-based link to show how ridiculous that posters' comment was-how many times do i have to explain this to you?
And again, I'm anti-multicultural because I believe it is difficult for a nation to be stable and prosper if it's divided. The US has historically been united in a boiling pot but now the proper analogy is the salad bowl. My concern is that if this multi-culturalist ideal is pushed too far we could end up like the Balkans. It has nothing to do with one culture being much "better" than another" but is a matter of simple practicality.
But you want everyone to reflect yours background. The problem withanti-multiculturalists and there divided ideology is, if they stop with the anti-multicultural views they would solve there own fear, if a society is diverse but one group tries to dominate over the another, what do you think is going happen?
Quote:
It has nothing to do with believing my own culture is superior to all others. Exploring foreign lands and cultures is my passion.
P.S. If we're going to continue arguing can you be less tiresome with the overuse of the ethnocentric accusations? I don't know how to convey to you any more that I'm not ashamed of admitting that I want my own culture to be the pre-eminent one in this country. So let me guess, I assume you'll try to turn this into race again. Which, by the way is the meaning of the straw man argument.
How is that a straw man, when you want your culture to be pre-eminent in this country? yes that is ethnocentric and just because your tired of it, isn't going change that your ethnocentric, I mean how does that works? The ideal is judging other people culture is the error, you don't suppose to judge others culture.
Quote:
So let me guess, I assume you'll try to turn this into race again.
dude your killing me you said, you want your culture to be the pre-eminent one in this country. Then turn around say So let me guess, I assume you'll try to turn this into race again. What you just said will cause conflicts along racial lines again, not to mention religion and etc lines also.
Quote:
I could care less if I esteem my own culture
Quote:
I'm not ashamed of admitting that I want my own culture to be the pre-eminent one in this country
Quote:
P.P.S After reading your post again I'm shocked we agree on something. People's definitions of race are logically flawed and scientifically lacking as well. When someone says people of color or wanting to eat ethnic food I want to slap them.
I want to slap people, who think latino is racial and they have physical features
It seems like the majority of people don't mind living in ethnically diverse neighborhoods as long as they aren't too economically diverse. I'm kinda that way...color and background don't matter at all, but I really don't want to live nextdoor to a slum.
Well that is really what it comes down to at the end of the day.
An Indian doctor, Oxford educated and fond of Ralph Lauren clothes is somebody most Americans would swoon over or at least find to be a good neighbor. But an Indian guy fresh off the boat from Mumbai who drives a cab? Most people are not going to be hostile, just indifferent.
I reckon most Americans love diversity so long as the diverse people in question fit snugly into their own cultural perspective.
Of course, that is not really very diverse now is it?
Japan, Korea, and Iceland are notably homogenous....and all have a high standard of living. What's the point here, exactly?
.
Iceland is having a financial meltdown as we speak. The Philippines, Vietnam are Homogenous...yet four times as poor as Mexico, Venezuela, and Chile. Look it up. Why are you bringing Economics into the picture that's not the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
You say that the " 'Protestant Christian foundation' is way too uptight"; assuming that's the case, I ask you, "too uptight for WHO, exactly? Who makes this observation ?". If a Protestant Christian-based society is 'way too uptight', one might conclude that few people would be attracted to immigrate there...yet the US has always attracted great numbers of immigrants..the majority of them coming here willingly..
Let me make it a little simpler. The type of Protestantism that has been practiced here is very fundamentalist, compared to many places in the world. Continental Europe as well as many Latin American countries are not so uptight as far as giving Gays legal marriage, decriminalizing drugs, and much more. Going through life feeling guilty is not a good thing.
As far as to why immigrants come here, just ask them. It’s the $$ it's not because they want to become Puritans. But that’s not the topic either.
I didn't know that Americans were obsessed with diversity. What I have noticed is that some people - mostly conservatives - often criticize others who appreciate a diverse population. To them, diversity is clearly a bad thing. They don't like people who are different from themselves, I guess.
And how do liberals view cities that lack diversity? How would you characterize a city like Salt Lake City or Oklahoma City? I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be good.
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.
