JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:
I'd assume we consider our own culture as superior because we've lived it, absorbed it, and are trained to want things from within that lifestyle that our culture has developed. It's not necessarily going to look superior to a total outsider from another planet.
To a planetary outsider, wouldn't it be more plausible to assume they would concentrate more on the culture with the most advanced technology - in terms of what would threaten, benefit, or otherwise interest them most?
You'd think so, if that's what floats your own personal boat, but it's not always the case with people, so who knows what a species from another planet might be interested in.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:JT wrote:multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation"
Is it not, in principle? Maybe in current practice there are barriers that make it more difficult, but in theory it would be the ideal goal, surely? It's artificially learned differences that cause problems between cultures. They'll merge and evolve in generations to come, as others have in generations past.
I think that is where the confusion is. We in the U.S view our cultural history in terms of what we call a "melting pot", where immigrants with differing initial cultures come together to assimilate into a dominant American culture. They may and do retain elements of their initial culture, but the dominant identifying culture becomes uniquely American. Multi-culturalism, the way most Liberals view it, does not demand or even envisage this melting into an overarching dominant single culture. They somehow think that many separate cultures will somehow just get along. And we must all respect each others cultural norms. Hence letting muslims where head scarves and such in drivers license photos. All this is dysfunctional. Sometimes we refer to this distortion of the melting pot as a "salad bowl" or something like that. Multi-culturalism interpreted this way inevitably leads to the inefficiencies of heterogeneousness and conflict. In the long run, it just won't work.
I can't disagree there. I'd say i see the two differences in my finacee and her brother. She's what they term a 'banana' - yellow on the outside white on the inside - she mainly speaks english, even with cousins, etc - only really conversing in chinese to older family members. She has English friends, eats Western food and is, to all intents and purposes a Westerner. Her brother, however, mainly speaks Chinese; sticks within a small circle of Chinese friends and only makes new friends with people who come from overseas to study here; he prefers to stick to Chinese food and seems to have no desire to be 'Western'. He talks constantly about wanting to go back and work in Hong Kong. Am i wrong to keep telling him to stop simply saying it and actually fook off back there? He'll soon realise how much harder it is back in Hong Kong than the life he has over here.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote:JT wrote:We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".
I don't know about as much as, but certainly some background to their peoples' and their role in the history of America's development should be there.
Yes, be there, but not equivalent to that of European/colonist history. There IS a difference in degree of influence to the development of the country. Thats what should dictate degree of academic attention. Libs don't like to here that, but its true.
Again, can't really disagree. The history of European descent is probably more relevant to the majority of US citizens, so it should realistically be the predominant history taught? I'd imagine there's room in further education to specialise in some sort of Native American Indian based study if one is that way inclined?
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Moon-Crane wrote: Apologise for nothing in history would be my motto. Criticise where you feel appropriate, sure. Celebrate where you feel appropriate. Take neither credit nor blame, though.
Thats ok. It would ok if that would be the case, but libs base their concepts of victim hood and, well, much of the very foundation of their ideology on perceived white/European/American/male wrongs of the past. They are still getting away with it. Political correctness. We are still apologizing (love those "z's" ?). It has seeped into government, law, academia, media, and most other areas of life.
This is, again, where i don't believe that true liberals feel this way. I think a faction of people, with some agenda more complex than simple political correctness, have hijacked the word and allowed the media to destroy the positive connotations of what liberal should mean (again, i'm implying that i don't believe the media, in general, are at all liberal).
Ands the 'z' is fine