Right, I'll take this a bit at a time, so that I don't miss any. Sorry if I'm repeating anything I've said earlier. (Who knows, I might even contradict myself a few times, if I do then it's probably because this discussion has changed my views, that's good, right?
)
JT wrote:Everyone was better off with having assimilation mostly happen Indian to Euro and not vice versa.
I
don't agree that 'everyone' was better off for it, I
do agree that the majority were though.
Euro culture was superior in advancement to that of the 'native' populations.
Euro culture was further along the 'Western development' path, I don't think that this necessarily means that it was superior.
Its my belief that liberals are confused in their application of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is better viewed as a tool anthropologists use to appropriately and effectively study 'foreign' cultures. Its an academic mind-set that allows them to properly study cultural phenomena.
Yes, I accept that it is a tool, and that it is a particular approach used by Academics - a paradigm in the subject area of Anthropology.
The broader liberal public mistakenly and destructively whack the rest of us sane people over the head with crap like "one culture is not superior to another-only different", "multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation", "We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".
In my humble opinion, I don't think the way you've phrased this is very objective. You are impling that the liberal public are 'insane' and that their ideas are 'crap'. If that's what you really think, then personally I feel you are categorising yourself. You have put yourself in a box and can't see anything outside of it. Just as you feel that the Academic approach is politically biased, I feel that you yourself are dismissing a whole wealth of ideas and approaches and preventing yourself from thinking objectively.
"one culture is not superior to another-only different"
Yes - that's what I think, but I haven't arrived at that conclusion by identifying myself with a particular political group or philosophy. There are some
measurable areas within a culture, such as crime levels. I don't think many people would argue against the fact that low crime levels are a positive thing.
There are some areas which are
measurable but cannot be universally categorised as 'positive' or 'negative'. In USA and UK culture, financial affluence is seen as being a positive. This is because we live in a Capitalist society. Because 'developing' countries are being 'moulded' by our Western ideals, it is increasingly the case that
all countries see affluence as positive.
However, how do we know this is right? How do we know we've 'developed' in the right way? In the global society in which we live, it must be pretty impossible in the 21st century to find a culture that does not see money as good. But theoretically, it is possible to have a society in which money is actually irrelevant. Did the Native Americans have a monetary system - I don't know? Or did they use barter?
Forgive me for using Sci-Fi as an example, but in Star Trek, humans have no physical money. There is a quote from First Contact which explains it nicely, but I can't remember it word for word! Basically, humans of the future see bettering themselves, advancing educationally and working hard are the objectives, not accruing money.
The third part of 'culture', as I see it, is perhaps the most important part - it is what I see as the
unmeasurable part - music, lifestyle, ideals, religion, sport, etc. I don't see how these things can be compared to one another and rated in a non-subjective way. That, to me, is why "one culture is not superior to another-only different."
"multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation"
Again, my argument here is simply - who's to say it's not? It is one possible way of organisation, how can anyone measure whether it is the best, the worst or somewhere in between? There are points in favour of it, there are points against it, the same as any other method of organisation.
"We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males"
Is that something which actually happens in the American schooling system, I don't know? If it does, I can see the logic behind it. Native Americans and 'dead white European males', as you phrase it, have both played a part in the history of the USA, so why should they not both be taught?