At 3/30/11 09:48 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 3/30/11 02:46 AM, Yorik wrote:

You aren't even trying.

At 3/29/11 03:50 PM, KemCab wrote: Co-existence of cultures is possible -- multi-ethnic nations have evidently existed -- but this existence of a plurality is often the source of societal tensions.

your entire argument boils down to "plurality is a source of tension, so, let's not have it."

boring, dumb, unrealistic, et cetera

At 3/31/11 02:05 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: plurality is a source of tension

which it is

so, let's not have it.

why would we want to have something with such significant negative effects?

At 3/31/11 05:27 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: why would we want to have something with such significant negative effects?

lol, i'm not debating the idea that plurality is a source of tension. however,

At 3/29/11 01:42 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: it's like saying that there would be less arguments between people if only we could prevent the free exchange of ideas between them. well, sure, i suppose that's true... but it's pretty stupid and unrealistic, not to mention that it sounds boring as shit.

...so, if KemCab wants to frame this whole thing as a competition between cultures/"common identities" then it's worth asking how the prevention of such competition works towards any real long-term benefit. this whole idea of segregating cultures in an attempt to "strive for cohesion" in the face of something dynamic and ever-changing sounds like it would only provide short-term, tentative benefits (if any at all).

also i don't know if you even read what you linked, but in the 10 seconds i spent skimming it, i saw this:

-----
"In this article, I wish to make three broad points:

Ethnic diversity will increase substantially in virtually all modern societies over the next several decades, in part because of immigration. Increased immigration and diversity are not only inevitable, but over the long run they are also desirable. Ethnic diversity is, on balance, an important social asset, as the history of my own country demonstrates.

In the short to medium run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity challenge social solidarity and inhibit social capital. In support of this provocative claim I wish to adduce some new evidence, drawn primarily from the United States. In order to elaborate on the details of this new evidence, this portion of my article is longer and more technical than my discussion of the other two core claims, but all three are equally important.

In the medium to long run, on the other hand, successful immigrant societies create new forms of social solidarity and dampen the negative effects of diversity by constructing new, more encompassing identities. Thus, the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies is to create a new, broader sense of 'we'. "
-----

so apparently me and that guy are already on the same page. plurality is not only inevitable, it's desirable, and the problem of social tension is a short-term issue that can be worked-through for long-term benefits. when cultures meet, it isn't like one always gets absorbed and the other does all the absorbing -- they can in fact "construct new, more encompassing identities". so what part of "a new, broader sense of 'we' " suggests to you that multiculturalism is something that should be avoided? it seems to me that guy is saying that multiculturalism is one of the first steps on the road towards 'a more encompassing identity'.

think of it as social darwinism... only with less emphasis on the whole "survival of the fittest" thing and more emphasis on horizontal gene transfer.

At 3/31/11 06:13 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: so apparently me and that guy are already on the same page. plurality is not only inevitable, it's desirable, and the problem of social tension is a short-term issue that can be worked-through for long-term benefits.

if by benefits you mean returning things pretty much to the way they were before, then sure. but i don't see what long-term benefits come out of diversity, besides maybe better food and music.

also, keep in mind that the guy who wrote the article sat on the data for five years out of fear that he'd get booted out of academia for publishing something so politically incorrect. the bits about long-term identity have no scientific basis and were just put there so he could cover his ass.

it seems to me that guy is saying that multiculturalism is one of the first steps on the road towards 'a more encompassing identity'.

we're all americans, but now we all listen to rap! what an excellent cultural advancement that was totally worth hundreds of years of bitter race wars!!

as if people can't take ideas from other cultures without being overrun by people from those cultures. eastern european folk music is very influential in the bits of the current indie scene that involve actual talent, but how many eastern europeans are there in america?

At 3/31/11 06:57 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: also, keep in mind that the guy who wrote the article sat on the data for five years out of fear that he'd get booted out of academia for publishing something so politically incorrect. the bits about long-term identity have no scientific basis and were just put there so he could cover his ass.

that must be why he goes on and on about how terrible the immigrant influenced future will be;
"So our societies will inevitably be more ethnically diverse tomorrow than they are today. And that diversity will be a valuable national asset.3 It is not merely that national cuisine is enhanced by immigration, or even that culture of all sorts is enhanced by diversity, though culture and cuisine in my own country provide powerful evidence of those benefits.

* %u2022%u2002
Creativity in general seems to be enhanced by immigration and diversity (Simonton 1999). Throughout history, for example, immigrants have accounted for three to four times as many of America's Nobel Laureates, National Academy of Science members, Academy Award film directors and winners of Kennedy Center awards in the performing arts as native-born Americans (Lerner & Roy 1984; Simonton 1999, Chapter 6; Smith & Edmonston 1997, 384-5). If we were to include second-generation immigrants (i.e. the children of immigrants), the contribution of immigrants would be even greater. Many (though not all) of the scores of studies of collective creativity in work groups (in business, education and so on) find that diversity fosters creativity (Webber & Donahue 2001; O'Reilly et al. 1997; Williams & O'Reilly 1998). Scott Page (2007) has powerfully summarized evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving.
* %u2022%u2002
Immigration is generally associated with more rapid economic growth. The economics profession has debated the short-run economic consequences of immigration for native workers. While there are important distributional effects to be considered, especially the impact of immigration on low-wage native workers in the US, the weight of the evidence suggests that the net effect of immigration is to increase national income. One recent study, for example, suggests that the income of native-born Americans rises more rapidly, ceteris paribus, if they are living in places with more immigrants than if they are living in places with fewer immigrants.4
* %u2022%u2002
In advanced countries with aging populations, immigration is important to help offset the impending fiscal effects of the retirement of the baby-boom generation (Smith & Edmonston 1997, Chapters 6 and 7). In my country, for example, young immigrant workers (documented and undocumented) contribute financially to our Social Security system, but will not draw benefits for several decades, if at all, thus mitigating the otherwise unsustainable imbalance in the medium term between outflow and inflow into our national coffers.5 This effect is even more important in the more rapidly aging nations of Europe and East Asia.
* %u2022%u2002
New research from the World Bank has highlighted yet another benefit from immigration, one of special relevance to the Nordic countries that have long played a disproportionate role on issues of global development. This new research suggests that immigration from the global South to the richer North greatly enhances development in the South, partly because of remittances from immigrants to their families back home and partly because of the transfer of technology and new ideas through immigrant networks. So powerful is this effect that despite 'brain drain' costs, increasing annual northward immigration by only three percentage points might produce net benefits greater than meeting all our national targets for development assistance plus cancelling all Third World debt plus abolishing all barriers to Third World trade (World Bank 2005; Pritchett 2006)"

read your links before making claims (*&@#!

At 3/31/11 06:57 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: i don't see what long-term benefits come out of diversity, besides maybe better food and music.

how can you recognize the possibility of better food and music... but nothing else? like, how does that even work? what makes food and music a positive transmission but eeeeeeeeeverything else either neutral or negative?

also, keep in mind that the guy who wrote the article sat on the data for five years out of fear that he'd get booted out of academia for publishing something so politically incorrect. the bits about long-term identity have no scientific basis and were just put there so he could cover his ass.

two out of three of his 'broad points' are about why diversity is desirable, and you're telling me that it's just to cover his ass. yyyyeaahhh okay.

as if people can't take ideas from other cultures without being overrun by people from those cultures.

so wait, is this about ethnic groups or cultural groups? on the last page you said --

At 3/15/11 09:34 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Ethnic homogeneity is irrelevant. Cultural homogeneity is what matters.

-- but here it seems that your concern is the exact opposite. here you're talking about an ethnic invasion being bad while maintaining a blasé attitude towards what ideals they may actually bring in tow. if cultural homogeneity is what matters, then shouldn't you be opposed to cultures even taking ideas from one-another? if ethnic homogeneity is irrelevant then why would you even care about who might 'overrun' who?

At 3/31/11 11:47 AM, SolInvictus wrote: Creativity in general seems to be enhanced by immigration and diversity (Simonton 1999).
Immigration is generally associated with more rapid economic growth.

Well, no shit. Immigrants were historically more likely to be members of the elite. Ignore people like Einstein and Sergey Brin and I suspect you'd see a very different picture.

. Many (though not all) of the scores of studies of collective creativity in work groups (in business, education and so on) find that diversity fosters creativity (Webber & Donahue 2001; O'Reilly et al. 1997; Williams & O'Reilly 1998). Scott Page (2007) has powerfully summarized evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving.

That is intellectual diversity. That is not cultural diversity. That is not ethnic diversity. And workplaces are not societies.

In advanced countries with aging populations, immigration is important to help offset the impending fiscal effects of the retirement of the baby-boom generation (Smith & Edmonston 1997, Chapters 6 and 7)

That is a problem with feminism and Social Security.

This new research suggests that immigration from the global South to the richer North greatly enhances development in the South

Big fucking deal.

read your links before making claims (*&@#!

There's a reason I linked to it. You might want to read it again.

how can you recognize the possibility of better food and music... but nothing else? like, how does that even work? what makes food and music a positive transmission but eeeeeeeeeverything else either neutral or negative?

What other positive effects are there?

two out of three of his 'broad points' are about why diversity is desirable, and you're telling me that it's just to cover his ass. yyyyeaahhh okay.

"In the short to medium run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity challenge social solidarity and inhibit social capital. In support of this provocative claim I wish to adduce some new evidence, drawn primarily from the United States. In order to elaborate on the details of this new evidence, this portion of my article is longer and more technical than my discussion of the other two core claims, but all three are equally important."

The underlined section, translated into normal English, says that this is the point that he has actual data for.

here you're talking about an ethnic invasion being bad while maintaining a blasé attitude towards what ideals they may actually bring in tow.

Not their ideals. Eastern European folk music has had a significant influence on American indie music, but America doesn't have packs of Eastern Europeans flooding in and bringing their taste for corruption and authoritarianism with them. The former is not a problem, but the latter would be.

At 4/1/11 12:23 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: So does the OP wish to live in a world were everyone thinks the same, dresses the same, likes the same things, eats the same foods, and does everything the same?

Straw man.

That sounds like the worst place on the planet. It would have no life to it.

That's debatable.

I doubt any intellectual person would feel that diversity is a bad thing.

KemCab meant that too much diversity can, and is, a bad thing.

At 4/1/11 01:05 AM, Preternatural wrote: KemCab meant that too much diversity can, and is, a bad thing.

Yeah, and he's fucking wrong.

Japan and South Korea are both homogenous countries. They must be very lonely.

At 3/31/11 04:26 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Well, no shit. Immigrants were historically more likely to be members of the elite. Ignore people like Einstein and Sergey Brin and I suspect you'd see a very different picture.

...really? that is something i have never seen that being purported anywhere. and its not like worrying about immigrant education levels is something new.

. Many (though not all) of the scores of studies of collective creativity in work groups (in business, education and so on) find that diversity fosters creativity (Webber & Donahue 2001; O'Reilly et al. 1997; Williams & O'Reilly 1998). Scott Page (2007) has powerfully summarized evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving.

That is intellectual diversity. That is not cultural diversity. That is not ethnic diversity. And workplaces are not societies.

bravo; and he found this diversity increased through what means?

In advanced countries with aging populations, immigration is important to help offset the impending fiscal effects of the retirement of the baby-boom generation (Smith & Edmonston 1997, Chapters 6 and 7)

That is a problem with feminism and Social Security.

that can be eased through what means?

This new research suggests that immigration from the global South to the richer North greatly enhances development in the South

Big fucking deal.

yes, a world better prepared to deal with modern global problems is something of very little relevance or importance.

read your links before making claims (*&@#!

There's a reason I linked to it. You might want to read it again.

didn't see anything new; initial immigration and ethnic heterogeneity creates tension and social problems, generally these problems are overcome and the cycle continues with new immigrants and ethnicity.
the issue advanced by the author of your link is that at the moment we have no real concerted means of guiding integration and encouraging social cohesion.
he then presents and discusses methods, benefits and findings to this end.
at no point does he say "stop the immigrants/blackie/not-whitey because they be ruining our country" or present that they are the source of our problem.
there is absolutely no point where the author presents anything racist/not-pc that would require him to hide his work and findings; they are completely congruent with sociology's purpose and abilities, there is no evidence of scientific misconduct.

personally i would love to know what you guys have been getting out of this guy.

At 3/30/11 03:12 PM, Me-Patch wrote: That you're just obstinately pounding away on a bullshit topic in an attempt to prove that anyone can argue any point indefinitely?

I won't say it's complete nonsense -- after all it definitely made sense at certain points in history -- but the point of the topic was, as a lot of my posts are, to attack liberalism, egalitarianism, idealism, etc. So do I really believe that different races, ethnicities, cultures, et cetera can get along? For the most part -- and particularly at the individual level -- yes; but it is not as clear cut as the societal level as one would have it.

All political positions, including this one, are ideological. All ideologies are ultimately nonsense -- but for the sake of structuring society in the way you want it to be, it is nevertheless useful nonsense. Once a particular ideology no longer applies, you abandon it -- but NOT because it is old, or dated, or useless, or because the new one is more "progressive" -- you just toss it to the side and save it for a rainy day. (For example, why do you think even liberal democracies make provisions for emergency powers that are dictatorial in scope?)

But for the remainder of the topic I'm not going to back down from this position.

At 4/1/11 02:36 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: There were people in the past that didn't want diversity. They were the Nazis.

Do you do this on purpose? Now you're just trying to make KemCab and everyone who believes he's right look bad without having to explain your reasoning.

Here's an example of failed multiculturalism. Look at France's muslim problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YQANdvv bY

Why should european countries feel the need to open their borders? Europeans get treated like shit in muslim countries.

At 3/31/11 06:13 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: when cultures meet, it isn't like one always gets absorbed and the other does all the absorbing -- they can in fact "construct new, more encompassing identities".

A larger culture is affected less by a smaller one than vice versa.

so what part of "a new, broader sense of 'we' " suggests to you that multiculturalism is something that should be avoided? it seems to me that guy is saying that multiculturalism is one of the first steps on the road towards 'a more encompassing identity'.

Because that "new" identity feels contrived.

At 4/1/11 12:23 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: So does the OP wish to live in a world were everyone thinks the same, dresses the same, likes the same things, eats the same foods, and does everything the same? That sounds like the worst place on the planet. It would have no life to it.

Actually I would find that to be very amusing if anything. Also I have no interest in other what most other people really think or like, so this isn't really a problem for me.

At 4/1/11 04:26 PM, KemCab wrote: Because that "new" identity feels contrived.

what's your point?

you realize a state-imposed uniformity of culture would be the ultimate example of contrivance, right?

maybe we should be solving problems, not replacing them.

At 3/7/11 03:04 PM, KemCab wrote:

The further you are from the norm the more apt to be alienated from the mainstream culture. So in fact, a white Christian American is "more American" than a Japanese-American or an Arab-American or an Indian-American or whatever, no matter however patriotic they might feel or claim to feel.

This is the main point of contention I have with your argument.You say the norm is to be a Northern European American.That culturally this is what the country as a whole aims to have as is model form of society.Yes its true that whites are the majority and that their culture is the mainstay of American society.However there are the cultures of numerous other people from Asia and Africa who stimulated American culture to a point where we no longer subscribe to a narrow W.A.S.P identity.

You have differences between Northern and Southern Europeans that are deep and divisive at times as well.You have Europeans who dont resemble blue eyed blonde haired individuals but they can be called true patriots for what they have done.All I mean is you dont have to be from a certain culture to feel like you need be patriotic for it.Or maybe I just dont follow would you explain a little for me lol.

At 4/2/11 10:23 PM, SouthAsian wrote: You have differences between Northern and Southern Europeans that are deep and divisive at times as well.

damn straight; it wasn't long ago Italians weren't considered "white".

and before that, the Irish weren't white either.

At 4/1/11 04:32 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: you realize a state-imposed uniformity of culture would be the ultimate example of contrivance, right?

Not as much as creating a new identity that has no relationship to reality at all. A state-imposed uniformity of culture presupposes that one at least has a culture to work with or to create.

At 4/2/11 10:23 PM, SouthAsian wrote: This is the main point of contention I have with your argument.You say the norm is to be a Northern European American.

Well, a European American in general -- since WASPs no longer have total political hegemony.

However there are the cultures of numerous other people from Asia and Africa who stimulated American culture to a point where we no longer subscribe to a narrow W.A.S.P identity.

Asian and African immigrants (not African-Americans) make up a very small percentage of the population. And even if there has been influence by other cultures, it does not profoundly change the essence of what an American is -- after all, Iberia was heavily influenced by Moorish culture yet today it is European, not Arabic.

Or maybe I just dont follow would you explain a little for me lol.

I'm not saying that people of other races, cultures, etc. can't be patriotic -- rather that there is a "cultural center of gravity" around which American culture revolves around, and that is, roughly white of some form, preferably Western European, but the prominence of other whites have shifted that center of gravity away from WASP culture.

Right now, Muslim and Asian immigrants are on the periphery -- even if one could argue that they are a part of American culture proper -- simply because they make a fraction of the population and generate a fraction of the culture. Moreover, the secular, liberalist principles that form a basis for the American government is fundamentally a European, Judeo-Christian construct.

At 4/4/11 04:54 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/1/11 04:32 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: you realize a state-imposed uniformity of culture would be the ultimate example of contrivance, right?

Not as much as creating a new identity that has no relationship to reality at all.

yes well no one is talking about "a new identity that has no relationship to reality at all" sooo i still don't know what your point is.

A state-imposed uniformity of culture presupposes that one at least has a culture to work with or to create.

you make it sound like new identities that develop as a result of multiculturalism would NOT presuppose "at least a culture to work with" even though they actually presuppose multiple cultures from which to draw their character from.

lol seriously, where are you getting this "no relationship to reality" nonsense anyway? a state-imposed uniformity of culture is several levels MORE REMOVED from reality since it suggests an authoritarian striving that attempts to prevent organic ("dynamic, constantly changing" - you) sociological developments.

the reality is that culture changes -- the idea that the state can successfully prevent such change from occurring is what's unrealistic here.

At 4/4/11 03:46 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: yes well no one is talking about "a new identity that has no relationship to reality at all" sooo i still don't know what your point is.

The contrived identity that I'm speaking of is that of the idea that "we are all equal, all human, all special, et cetera" that virtually every Western liberal democracy forces down the throats of their citizens.

even though they actually presuppose multiple cultures from which to draw their character from.

Why exactly would a thriving culture need multiculturalism in the first place? It is only a decadent one that has to resort to continually bringing in new elements and curiosities in order to sustain itself.

lol seriously, where are you getting this "no relationship to reality" nonsense anyway?

As in a culture based upon meaningless fantasies and concepts like human rights and equality and what not while removing the mystical element of it all -- essentially a nihilistic culture as dogmatic as the craziest theocracy out there without the passion behind it. A culture that is genuinely disingenuous.

a state-imposed uniformity of culture is several levels MORE REMOVED from reality since it suggests an authoritarian striving that attempts to prevent organic ("dynamic, constantly changing" - you) sociological developments.

No state can impose total uniformity of culture, or zero cultural exchange, etc.

At 4/1/11 11:41 AM, SolInvictus wrote: ...really? that is something i have never seen that being purported anywhere.

Takes money to immigrate, doesn't it? People who can't pay for transportation here can't get here, and people with more money are more likely to have more education.

bravo; and he found this diversity increased through what means?

Irrelevant. Intellectual diversity can be brought about by other means, such as a less biased education system.

That is a problem with feminism and Social Security.

that can be eased through what means?

Through, uh, fixing the problems? Reforming Social Security and repealing the more damaging policies of feminism.

yes, a world better prepared to deal with modern global problems is something of very little relevance or importance.

And why are global problems the concern of the state?

didn't see anything new; initial immigration and ethnic heterogeneity creates tension and social problems, generally these problems are overcome and the cycle continues with new immigrants and ethnicity.

The crucial part isn't in this particular study: it's that the negative side effects of ethnic diversity are more pronounced in areas with more residential segregation, and obviously, higher residential segregation is correlated with, and therefore a proxy in this case for, higher cultural diversity.

at no point does he say "stop the immigrants/blackie/not-whitey because they be ruining our country" or present that they are the source of our problem.

And at no point did I say that. I don't care what people look like as long as they assimilate. And if they assimilate fully, nobody will care. Who still bitches about the Germans or the Irish these days? Nobody, because they've assimilated. Those particular ethnic groupings are no longer relevant in that way.

there is absolutely no point where the author presents anything racist/not-pc that would require him to hide his work and findings

Like hell it's not massively politically incorrect to say that diversity is bad. Especially considering that Putnam works for Harvard. You know, the same Harvard that kicked Lawrence Summers out for speculating about a possible genetic component to intelligence that runs along the lines of sex.

; they are completely congruent with sociology's purpose and abilities, there is no evidence of scientific misconduct.

Ideology, however, is not congruent with the purpose of any science. And, as has been repeatedly shown, ideological concerns take precedence over actual evidence in the vast majority of cases. If you believe that people who consider themselves rational will not overwhelmingly abandon reason when it does not suit their ideological purposes, you might want to look into the Jim Goad rape-issue controversy. (And the part where Jim Goad got his ass thrown in jail on blatantly trumped-up charges soon after the case that erupted from the controversy got thrown out.)

Well, a European American in general -- since WASPs no longer have total political hegemony.

Right.

However there are the cultures of numerous other people from Asia and Africa who stimulated American culture to a point where we no longer subscribe to a narrow W.A.S.P identity.

Asian and African immigrants (not African-Americans) make up a very small percentage of the population. And even if there has been influence by other cultures, it does not profoundly change the essence of what an American is -- after all, Iberia was heavily influenced by Moorish culture yet today it is European, not Arabic.

I'm just curious what is an American in essence?You brought up a very good point regarding the Moorish expansion into Spain.However there were far reaching, rippling effects by Arab/Islamic culture that stimulated the Spanish culture and European culture in general that reaches even into modern times.The scientific and intellectual centers of the Islamic world like Baghdad and Cordoba preserved and built upon ancient Greek,Roman,Persian,Chinese, and Indian knowledge.

Some of the earliest universities developed in the Middle East.As such the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were indirectly influenced by a non European culture because of the transfusion and translation of these two cultures, the Muslims and Europeans. because it was the dedication of the Muslims to scientific inquiry and rationality back then that greatly impacted the unprecedented developments by Europe such as the Age of Discovery.

The founding fathers drew upon such Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke who would have been influenced by the generations before him, who they themselves would have studied the very same manuscripts and texts that was preserved, and compiled by Muslims, and Arabs, the very same people you would suggest cant be true American patriots because they didn't have a hand in the cultures propagation when in all actuality they did.If anything the American culture and by extension European culture were recipients of much older civilizations like the Greeks, and also by the Muslim empires who saved such ancient works, and contributed their own developments.

I'm not saying that people of other races, cultures, etc. can't be patriotic -- rather that there is a "cultural center of gravity" around which American culture revolves around, and that is, roughly white of some form, preferably Western European, but the prominence of other whites have shifted that center of gravity away from WASP culture.

Yes preferably white.But what is white culture?What is it made of?And if we study white culture, and therefore American culture is it not possible that this white culture cant have close similarities and parallels to other "non white culture"?Look at Indo European civilization.It includes parts of India,Iran etc. because India and Iran speak Indo European languages, and there are incredible similarities between the ancient cultures of these people with ancient Europeans.So it is believed they(European,Iranians, Indians) come from a common root people.Do we expand "white culture" to the Iranians and Indians?

Right now, Muslim and Asian immigrants are on the periphery -- even if one could argue that they are a part of American culture proper -- simply because they make a fraction of the population and generate a fraction of the culture. Moreover, the secular, liberalist principles that form a basis for the American government is fundamentally a European, Judeo-Christian construct.

I would argue that American principles and values were founded upon by the founding fathers who themselves greatly were impacted and influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers, who stepped away from religious doctrines and began formulating independent conclusions to human way of thinking, and how we perceived each other and the natural world.From there they expanded into numerous schools of thought that discussed philosophical ideal, ideals not relating to Judeo Christian belief systems but that stemmed from a purely humanist POV.Like how we shouldn't follow religious rules but discover a guideline of our own, that adheres to free thought.To embrace our innate curiosity.

At 4/7/11 08:43 PM, SouthAsian wrote: I'm just curious what is an American in essence?

A white person of European or mixed heritage, or a person of any other race that is so diffuse or disconnected from their mother culture (e.g. African-Americans) that they have no other choice but to embrace America as their home.

If anything the American culture and by extension European culture were recipients of much older civilizations like the Greeks, and also by the Muslim empires who saved such ancient works, and contributed their own developments.

Ultimately everything and everyone is connected; at some point we have to stop giving credit, however. After all, ultimately we are not thanking the cavemen for discovering fire. Also it was the individual thinkers themselves rather than their respective cultures.

But what is white culture? What is it made of?

"White" is vague, but generally it means European and American culture, as well as any colonial offshoots thereof (like Australia and New Zealand).

is it not possible that this white culture cant have close similarities and parallels to other "non white culture"?

Ultimately yes.

Do we expand "white culture" to the Iranians and Indians?

Depends on who you ask (it is really an arbitrary definition no matter how you cut it) but generally no. If you want a couple of laughs on this matter, check out Stormfront and their ridiculous discussions on Turks, Indians, and Iranians.

I would argue that American principles and values were founded upon by the founding fathers who themselves greatly were impacted and influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers who stepped away from religious doctrines and began formulating independent conclusions to human way of thinking, and how we perceived each other and the natural world.

Here, let me clear something up: The Enlightenment helped to do away with Christian dogma, but not Christian morality; however it was roughly founded on pretty much the same moral premises as Christianity.

From there they expanded into numerous schools of thought that discussed philosophical ideal, ideals not relating to Judeo Christian belief systems but that stemmed from a purely humanist POV.

Humanism is essentially the secularized version of Christianity. Its values (empathy, kindness, compassion, etc.), which primarily developed in Europe and America -- from the Judeo-Christian value system. (It certainly wasn't from Eastern value systems. Although there is some emphasis on these aforementioned values, they were not their primary focus.)

And ultimately the liberalist and humanist point of view is European in origin.

Too much diversity
too little diversity
both are bad.

You have too much diversity and the culture is a huge mess.

You have too little diversity and the culture goes stagnant.

Need a comfortable middle ground. Just enough to be able to keep the core of your culture as wel as able to adapt new things from other cultures.

At 4/8/11 10:07 PM, penis-plant wrote: Need a comfortable middle ground. Just enough to be able to keep the core of your culture as wel as able to adapt new things from other cultures.

This is probably the most sensible reply I have probably heard in this thread.

At 4/8/11 11:50 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/8/11 10:07 PM, penis-plant wrote: Need a comfortable middle ground. Just enough to be able to keep the core of your culture as wel as able to adapt new things from other cultures.

This is probably the most sensible reply I have probably heard in this thread.

... i really don't think this is the first time someone has suggested a "middle-ground" in this thread, or pointed to the danger of extremes...
this is an interesting topic but it could really do with some goals or direction because we seem to be stuck on the "these are what research shows" and conjectures of ideal types as opposed to any realistic implication.

I'm going to agree with KemCab. Keep the core of your culture, and there won't be any problem if you take things from other cultures, as long as they don't go against it.

I dream of a world with their own culture, and a racially diverse one. Japanese culture didn't go stagnant though despite their homogeneity, on one hand. On the other hand, with an Anglo-American-Australian culture, you need lots of racial diversity in order to have a diverse culture and to keep it alive.