Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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.

At 4/8/11 10:07 PM, penis-plant wrote: Too much diversity
too little diversity
both are bad.

I haven't even seen one sensible reason that it's even possible to have "too much diversity."

At 4/9/11 01:32 PM, SolInvictus wrote: ... 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...

The "middle ground" is not really the absolute center. Metaphorical "centers of gravity" shift continually; the objective is to rectify the imbalance with an opposing force. To take extreme action is to rectify an existing imbalance -- that produced by multiculturalism, for example -- towards a more desirable direction.

At 4/10/11 06:12 AM, Yorik wrote: I haven't even seen one sensible reason that it's even possible to have "too much diversity."

Because people have an inherent apprehension of that which is different.

At 4/10/11 03:32 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/10/11 06:12 AM, Yorik wrote:

I haven't even seen one sensible reason that it's even possible to have "too much diversity."

Because people have an inherent apprehension of that which is different.

That is exactly like saying "It's not good to have too many races because there are racists."

At 4/11/11 09:42 AM, Yorik wrote: That is exactly like saying "It's not good to have too many races because there are racists."

No it isn't.

People are naturally apprehensive to things that are different; it is a natural response. It's not particularly bad per se either. While one can consciously suppress that tendency very easily, it still remains; the feeling of uneasiness does not vanish altogether, it is dissipated and manifests itself in the form of a general distrust, a general hatred -- especially when one is forced to live with it on a daily basis.

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.

Yes.Individuals from various who established white culture.You have quite a number of Greek,Roman,Persian,Chinese, and Indians stretching from Ancient times that contributed to the end product(white culture).It can be said that the Whites had the biggest impact on their own culture in the more modern era of course, but these developments are so much infused by one another(Eastern and Western culture) that to me they are all equal for their efforts in creating a cohesive, advanced,American society.So it perplexes me to hear that an Iranian cant be considered just as American as a German American even if the Iranian was born and raised and spoke perfect English and whose forefathers philosophically and intellectually advanced themselves to a point where the Europeans were compiling that very same knowledge into their own cultures and developing their own thoughts about it.

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).

OK.Yet to me White culture and by extension American culture is a hybrid of different cultures, and schools of thought, that compose of Asian,African, and European influences.For example the Ancient Greeks were at one time illiterate.They actually adopted their alphabet from the Phoenicians, a Middle Eastern semitic people.Another example is the Indian numerical system 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 that was introduced to the Arabs who introduced it to the Europeans.

We consider this number system to be very American and a part of White civilization although its origins are in India.Technically it can be argued that the whole of European and white culture is predicated on non white culture because it was the Greeks the founder of European civilization whose culture, (which includes language) derives by non whites(Phoenicians) and later the (Indians) whose number system we use today, gave birth to lots of modern technology.

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.

Hehehe oh I've been there.Very entertaining stuff.

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.

True.

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.

True although Humanism and liberalism was greatly expanded upon by Europeans it can find some of its existence in Medieval Islamic civilization.Human centered philosophy and its proponents go back to the 1000 BC of India. Gautama Buddha even challenged the supernatural.You have cascading schools of thought in China as well (Confucian).Now did the Europeans of the Enlightenment look towards India or China?

Like you mentioned before they probably played a small role but not a central one.However I personally would argue that the Medieval Islamic scholars played a central role in their scope and depth and their influence on their European counterparts in regards to their own separate developments in secular thought.

At 4/11/11 10:50 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/11/11 09:42 AM, Yorik wrote: That is exactly like saying "It's not good to have too many races because there are racists."

No it isn't.

People are naturally apprehensive to things that are different; it is a natural response. It's not particularly bad per se either. While one can consciously suppress that tendency very easily, it still remains; the feeling of uneasiness does not vanish altogether, it is dissipated and manifests itself in the form of a general distrust, a general hatred -- especially when one is forced to live with it on a daily basis.

And that is why our country should only be white christians. Then, surely, we could all get along and be a successful nation.

Right? Am I following you?

A Western culture cannot survive without ethnic diversity. We are mixture of different cultures- Australia has ethnic diversity, U.S. has the same, Canada has the same.

At 4/11/11 12:10 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Hehehe oh I've been there.Very entertaining stuff.

"They are not semitic like Arabs and their speak is not related to Arab. Arabs simply gave them the Islam."

oh the lulz, thanks for the stormfront ridculousness suggestion boys'n'girls.

but probably just boys; this is the interwebs afterall.

At 4/14/11 11:42 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/11/11 12:10 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Hehehe oh I've been there.Very entertaining stuff.

"They are not semitic like Arabs and their speak is not related to Arab. Arabs simply gave them the Islam."

oh the lulz, thanks for the stormfront ridculousness suggestion boys'n'girls.

but probably just boys; this is the interwebs afterall.

I wonder how white nationalists' worlds would shatter if they were smart enough to realize that everyone except blacks, Asians, Indians and Native Americans are technically the same race. Everyone else is Caucasoid, including Arabs, Jews, Hispanics, everyone from Europe, etc...

Probably not at all, actually, because so much of their world involves denying a lot of realities in the first place.

At 4/14/11 05:12 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: also, dividing broad ethnic/genetic backgrounds into black, yellow, brown, red, and white isn't a very "technical" approach to racial identity anyway

"technical" approaches depend on subject; censuses and other research tools take on varied definitions and subdivisions of race and ethnicity due to context, often resulting in the use of simplified (and often broader) classifications.

ex; statistics Canada has a list of ethnic minorities which range from the very broad for those of European descent and a greater specification and categorization for Asian ethnicities (Indian, South-Asian, etc...)

At 4/14/11 05:02 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 4/14/11 03:57 PM, Yorik wrote: I wonder how white nationalists' worlds would shatter if they were smart enough to realize that everyone except blacks, Asians, Indians and Native Americans are technically the same race. Everyone else is Caucasoid, including Arabs, Jews, Hispanics, everyone from Europe, etc...

err doesn't the term "nationalist" suggest that they're more concerned with nationality than race anyway?

Not so much in this case. The term "White Nationalist" is more or less the politically correct term for white supremecists, KKK, etc... Check out stormfront.org sometime for more info (and surely for a laugh. We all walk the streets with these ignorant people every day.)

Also, you said something in your other post about dividing people up by colors not being very technical. Well, it isn't, and that's why I never did it. There are technically only 3 different races and, biologically speaking, there are very few relevant differences between them. People divide eachother up into smaller groups like Japanese, Mexican, Italian, Hatian, etc... but these titles make as little difference as the three major races biologically speaking. It's just the nature of humans to categorize things like that in order to interpret and make sense of the world. Categorization is one thing, but discrimination is another. Every race and culture has been valuable in some way and will continue to be useful in the future.

I agree to an extent. Societies are certainly more cohesive with ethnic homogeneity, but it also takes quality genes. I also believe that people of different ethnicities, but common goals and quality genetics can also form decent societies.