[DLQ2006]

Using the concept of diversity in the context of ideas, values, and belief systems, is there a point at which we are at risk of collapsing as a nation?

When looking at history, there has been a pattern that has been repeated over and over again. That pattern is that as a nation grows up and evolves, if it ever gets to the point of being too big and too diverse, it will fragment and collapse from the inside because there is only so much control that can be exerted to keep a country together once it gets so big and so diverse. From African tribes to empires, the nature of human sociology in a macro sense of large groups of people is that groups fragment as they get bigger.

Western cultures that are tolerant of dissent are anomalies of human evolution in the sense that most cultures on earth have been ruled by a firm hand to control dissent in order to maintain unity of command. They’ve been ruled by kings, pharohs, and other types of rulers that would kill dissenters. We know of the purges that have happened throughout history such as how Stalin and Hitler purged their populations of anybody who dissented. Speaking as someone who would rather die than to ever be part of a culture that allows purges of those that have different ideas and beliefs, I also question what the fate will be to a nation such as ours that seems to be on the exact opposite end of the spectrum in terms of tolerance for diversity of ideas, values, and belief systems.

Whenever I analyze a concept, I tend to think of it in terms of a spectrum as to identify what the extremes are of that concept and then where I, or in this case, where our country fits on that spectrum. I believe that if you don’t ever look at concepts in terms of what the extremes are, the meaning of the whole concept gets blurred. Therefore, in looking at the unity vs. diversity concept, there are two extremes. On one end is the type of purges used by dictators where dissenters are killed. The exact opposite of that is when the growing fringes of your culture gets so diverse that they want to destroy your country and those that openly advocate destroying your country are allowed to flourish because we have this huge amount of tolerance.

While cultures that have no tolerance for diversity get high marks for preventing people from fighting with each other and falling apart as a group, the disadvantage of them is that they lack freedom and liberty (which is not an option for those of us that love freedom). However, the limitation of a culture that is extremely diverse in values and beliefs, is that you will not have the unity in thought, values, et cetera.

In the course of human history, has there ever been a nation as diverse in ideas and belief systems as ours? Considering the range of fringe groups we have like the white supremacists to the black panthers, all the sub-cultures we have, and all the various ideological groups we have, I would say that we must be the most diverse nation ever in terms of opinions and different beliefs. So, what is the glue that will hold us together as this type of diversity grows? Is there a point at which we will become so fragmented that this cripples us from fighting an enemy that threatens our survival as a nation? How will our government not get completely bogged down in inertia to the point that they won’t be able to get anything done and will therefore be paralyzed to act even in the face of our very survival being threatened by an external force? I would argue that we are already seeing this.

While I don’t think it’s gotten to the point that everything is all over tomorrow, I don’t think we are going in the right direction either. There seems to be a lot of middle ground between the two extreme ends of the spectrum that I’ve been talking about but how is this achieved? There has always been a certain amount of “melting” when it comes to different cultures coming to America that has formed our melting pot. However, how do we remain a melting pot, when the larger culture has an extremely high tolerance for diversity of ideas and values, and we now have subcultures that have come to America whose tolerance for this kind of diversity is not high. In other words, cultures that become soft in terms of tolerance, melt. While cultures that are hardcore about not tolerating other's belief systems do not melt. What we will have then is the larger culture within America making all the concessions to smaller subcultures that will make no such concessions. Therefore, in terms of those types of subcultures, how is it that they will come to accept our core values instead of us changing to accommodate theirs?

Differences in beliefs about things like abortion rights or gay rights aren’t going to cause our culture to come crashing down. A liberal Democracy can withstand those types of things. I'm more concerned with things like us continuing to have enough people with the will to fight for our way of life. Those that join the military to fight for our country are part of a certain culture of ideas also. Those not willing to join and fight, are relying on and benefiting from those that are. How does a nation inspire a bunch of 18 to 21 year olds to fight for their country once there is no sense of country left? When we've become nothing more than a bunch of competing interests that have no sense of belonging to a larger community and no sense of comradery?

[Nicko]

Lewis Prothero: So I read that the former United States is so desperate for medical supplies that they have allegedly sent several containers filled with wheat and tobacco. A gesture, they said, of good will. You wanna know what I think? Well, you're listening to my show, so I will assume you do... I think it's high time we let the colonies know what we really think of them. I think its payback time for a little tea party they through for us a few hundred years ago. I say we go down to those docks tonight and dump that crap where everything from the Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica belongs! Who's with me? Who's bloody with me?

[audience applauds]

Lewis Prothero: Did you like that? USA... Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica, I mean what else can you say? Here was a country that had everything, absolutely everything. And now, 20 years later, is what? The world's biggest leper colony. Why? Godlessness. Let me say that again... Godlessness. It wasn't the war they started. It wasn't the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement.



---

As for you essay, I HOPE the future you predict comes true and people don't simply become lemmings. It seems you are calling for a kind a nationalism to arrise or something. Frankly, in a truley globalized world, such notions are the most dangerous to everyone's well being.

I think my country, Canada got it right with embracing multi-culturalism instead of the melting pot.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Lewis Prothero: So I read that the former United States is so desperate for medical supplies that they have allegedly sent several containers filled with wheat and tobacco. A gesture, they said, of good will. You wanna know what I think? Well, you're listening to my show, so I will assume you do... I think it's high time we let the colonies know what we really think of them. I think its payback time for a little tea party they through for us a few hundred years ago. I say we go down to those docks tonight and dump that crap where everything from the Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica belongs! Who's with me? Who's bloody with me?

[audience applauds]

Lewis Prothero: Did you like that? USA... Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica, I mean what else can you say? Here was a country that had everything, absolutely everything. And now, 20 years later, is what? The world's biggest leper colony. Why? Godlessness. Let me say that again... Godlessness. It wasn't the war they started. It wasn't the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement.



---

As for you essay, I HOPE the future you predict comes true and people don't simply become lemmings. It seems you are calling for a kind a nationalism to arrise or something. Frankly, in a truley globalized world, such notions are the most dangerous to everyone's well being.

I think my country, Canada got it right with embracing multi-culturalism instead of the melting pot.

I like a joke as much as the next guy but any chance at humor in the prothero comments were screwed up by your failure to set it up well.

Congrats, Henny.

Now would you please tell us wtf he is and what was the venue and the set up for the gag?

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Nicko;3231767]

It wasn't the war they started. It wasn't the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement.

Yes, here we go.........all American claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism. So what is your point? That Americans today need to be destroyed because of past sins committed by others throughout the history of America? Since when is guilt transferable beyond the immediate perpetrators of a sin? I get the impression from your "no one escapes their past", "no one escapes judgement" rhetoric, that you are a walking, talking
example of someone who wraps themselves in the mantle of the “protector of the oppressed”. Does America have its share of dirty laundry? Yes. But pretty much every society today is the result of conquest. Is there some reason why the conquest of America should be thought of differently? Is there some reason why Americans should be made to pay for the past sins of others?

I’m sorry that humankind is what it is. The truth is not very pretty to look at. However, the truth has never been what it is made out to be by those like you that seem to believe that all of the world’s failed societies are the result of American and European dominance and what you consider to be American hegemony in particular. Where western Civilization is inherently evil and all of its successes are from exploiting oppressed cultures made up of poor, saintly, peace-loving, enviro-martyrs.

As for you essay, I HOPE the future you predict comes true and people don't simply become lemmings. It seems you are calling for a kind a nationalism to arrise or something. Frankly, in a truley globalized world, such notions are the most dangerous to everyone's well being.

Nationalism is also a concept that can be looked at in terms of where a particular country falls on a spectrum. On one end is what we witnessed from the Nazis where nationalism was taken to the extreme. This is something that has been held up as an example of everything that is evil ever since. So much so, that we seem to be moving toward the opposite end of extremes. The other extreme is NO nationalism. Where there is a total lack of nationalism, there is no unity and sense of belonging to a larger community, and countries that have no sense of nationalism at all will fail to defend themselves and their values. You decry the notion of having a sense of nationalism as dangerous to "a truley globalized world". Well, I don't want a globalized world. I kind of think our values are morally superior to many other ones out there and I don't want ours eroded by theirs because the world community decides that we are all morally equivalent. I'm all for trading with other countries. I'm not for the erasing of our borders and therefore our national identity and way of life.


I think my country, Canada got it right with embracing multi-culturalism instead of the melting pot.

embracing multi-culturalism is not the same thing as permitting the destruction of your country by a group of people simply because they are multi-cultural. You either didn't get my point, or you are intentionally trying to take what I said, turn it into something else, and argue against that instead of what my actual point is. I'm sure there is a name for that kind of tactic in Websters dictionary but I'm not interested in looking up what it is.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I think my country, Canada got it right with embracing multi-culturalism instead of the melting pot.

Wrong. Any country embracing multi-culturalism is heading for a fall, since it balkanises the place. Check out the current events in the UK for a glimpse of where you're headed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...1114_1,00.html

[marden]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wrong. Any country embracing multi-culturalism is heading for a fall, since it balkanises the place. Check out the current events in the UK for a glimpse of where you're headed.

Britain 'must scrap multiculturalism' - Britain - Times Online

You are absolutely correct!

A nation has to maintain a sense of itself as a thing that people want to join and be part of. A nation must not be allowed to be a mechanism to cater to their immigrant or ethnic or religious culture or ideas except in the case where tyranny or slavery has become the norm and freedom must be jump started.

American culture = Good.

America trying to promote sub-cultures to fight for dominance within America = Suicide.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Yes, here we go.........all American claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism. So what is your point? That Americans today need to be destroyed because of past sins committed by others throughout the history of America? Since when is guilt transferable beyond the immediate perpetrators of a sin? I get the impression from your "no one escapes their past", "no one escapes judgement" rhetoric, that you are a walking, talking
example of someone who wraps themselves in the mantle of the “protector of the oppressed”. Does America have its share of dirty laundry? Yes. But pretty much every society today is the result of conquest. Is there some reason why the conquest of America should be thought of differently? Is there some reason why Americans should be made to pay for the past sins of others?

Nicko used a quote from a fictional character from the movie "V for Vendetta", in which a fictional England is portrayed a few years in our future that suddenly found a solution to all problems of society, whereby the US went down because of its liberalism. Here is the full quote:

Lewis Protero: Did you like that? USA... Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica, I mean what else can you say? Here was a country that had everything, absolutely everything. And now, 20 years later, is what? The world's biggest leper colony. Why? Godlessness. Let me say that again... Godlessness. It wasn't the war they started. It wasn't the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement. You think he's not up there? You think he's not watching over this country? How else can you explain it? He tested us, but we came through. We did what we had to do. Islington. Enfield. I was there, I saw it all. Immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, terrorists. Disease-ridden degenerates. They had to go. Strength through unity. Unity through faith. I'm a God-fearing Englishman and I'm goddamn proud of it!

Probably, Nicko thought, that the character in that movie portrays a point of view similar to yours.

Taliesin

[Nicko]

[quote=DLQ2006;3231792]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

You decry the notion of having a sense of nationalism as dangerous to "a truley globalized world". Well, I don't want a globalized world. I kind of think our values are morally superior to many other ones out there and I don't want ours eroded by theirs because the world community decides that we are all morally equivalent. I'm all for trading with other countries. I'm not for the erasing of our borders and therefore our national identity and way of life.


I think my country, Canada got it right with embracing multi-culturalism instead of the melting pot.

embracing multi-culturalism is not the same thing as permitting the destruction of your country by a group of people simply because they are multi-cultural. You either didn't get my point, or you are intentionally trying to take what I said, turn it into something else, and argue against that instead of what my actual point is. I'm sure there is a name for that kind of tactic in Websters dictionary but I'm not interested in looking up what it is.

Taliesin is right, the quote is from a movie. I just found it amusing and it came to mind when I read this thread. Just food for thought I guess.

You're essay seems to express a fear that American values (whatever they are) are somehow being changed by minorities. I wonder if this is a rational fear or not, as you don't give any concrete examples. As for moral superiority of American values over all others, well I think Iraq has proved that to be unfounded.

It's too late to say you want no part of globalization, its happening now. Everything is connected whether you like it or not. Choose not to participate in the new world order and you'll just get left behind.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Using the concept of diversity in the context of ideas, values, and belief systems, is there a point at which we are at risk of collapsing as a nation?

As long as everybody believes in the coexistence of different belief systems and accepts modern Democratic principles (most central here is rule of the majority with protections for minorities), you're safe.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

When looking at history, there has been a pattern that has been repeated over and over again. That pattern is that as a nation grows up and evolves, if it ever gets to the point of being too big and too diverse, it will fragment and collapse from the inside because there is only so much control that can be exerted to keep a country together once it gets so big and so diverse. From African tribes to empires, the nature of human sociology in a macro sense of large groups of people is that groups fragment as they get bigger.

I don't think it's correlated to diversity, but size per se. China spans various regions with large cultural differences, ditto for Russia.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Western cultures that are tolerant of dissent are anomalies of human evolution in the sense that most cultures on earth have been ruled by a firm hand to control dissent in order to maintain unity of command. They’ve been ruled by kings, pharohs, and other types of rulers that would kill dissenters. We know of the purges that have happened throughout history such as how Stalin and Hitler purged their populations of anybody who dissented. ... the fate will be to a nation such as ours that seems to be on the exact opposite end of the spectrum in terms of tolerance for diversity of ideas, values, and belief systems.

Historically, autocratic regimes, be it kingdomes, plutocracies, oligarchies or whatnot, have proven to be less stable than democracies. The reason for their failure is simple: they have suppressed a large share of the population. It's fair to say that the different layers of society (be it farmers, nobles, craftsmen and merchants) have had different cultures as well. When sizeable portions of the population do not have any influence on political decisions, internal pressure mounts and it eventually blows up.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

While cultures that have no tolerance for diversity get high marks for preventing people from fighting with each other and falling apart as a group, the disadvantage of them is that they lack freedom and liberty (which is not an option for those of us that love freedom).

Cultures that have little tolerance for diversity eventually perish, just take a look at North Korea.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

However, the limitation of a culture that is extremely diverse in values and beliefs, is that you will not have the unity in thought, values, et cetera.

That's what democracy is about. There is never unity in thought and values, even if the group is very homogeneous such as in Japan. This unity of thought is an illusion that nationalists like to feed when there is really none.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

In the course of human history, has there ever been a nation as diverse in ideas and belief systems as ours? Considering the range of fringe groups we have like the white supremacists to the black panthers, all the sub-cultures we have, and all the various ideological groups we have, I would say that we must be the most diverse nation ever in terms of opinions and different beliefs. So, what is the glue that will hold us together as this type of diversity grows?

It's democracy and a belief in diversity. There will always be a fringe portion that doesn't believe in these ideals and for the other 95 %, there is usually disagreement, what these ideals mean if you apply them to a certain situation, but there is consensus that these ideals are good.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Is there a point at which we will become so fragmented that this cripples us from fighting an enemy that threatens our survival as a nation?

No, as long as the majority believes in fighting, this is what should be done. If that consensus changes, then the nation may withdraw from the fight.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

How will our government not get completely bogged down in inertia to the point that they won’t be able to get anything done and will therefore be paralyzed to act even in the face of our very survival being threatened by an external force? I would argue that we are already seeing this.

If you want to apply this to the current situation in Iraq, then your former arguments don't fit here at all. America is still dominated by WASPs in politics, muslims (a very small minority in the US) has virtually no say in American politics (only one Member of Congress is muslim), if that is what you are aiming for.

The same thing has happened more than once and the US hasn't broken apart (and won't break apart this time), e. g. during Vietnam.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

While I don’t think it’s gotten to the point that everything is all over tomorrow, I don’t think we are going in the right direction either. ... There has always been a certain amount of “melting” when it comes to different cultures coming to America that has formed our melting pot. However, how do we remain a melting pot, when the larger culture has an extremely high tolerance for diversity of ideas and values, and we now have subcultures that have come to America whose tolerance for this kind of diversity is not high. In other words, cultures that become soft in terms of tolerance, melt.

Extremes have never managed to stay on top for very long, so there is a natural selection of those cultures which are too intolerant towards others.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

While cultures that are hardcore about not tolerating other's belief systems do not melt. What we will have then is the larger culture within America making all the concessions to smaller subcultures that will make no such concessions. Therefore, in terms of those types of subcultures, how is it that they will come to accept our core values instead of us changing to accommodate theirs?

This is a fallacy. But to further your analogy: cultures that are too hard don't melt, they break and fragment in a violent way. Since I'm not exactly sure which kind of subcultures you are talking about, I'll extrapolate and explain my opinion.

In a few years' time, the majority of Americans will be latinos. This has a few no-brainer consequences: the majority of Americans will be Catholic and America will become a Catholic and not a protestant country. Plus, there will be more and more Spanish in everyday life. The former majority (`wasps') will have to hope that the new majority makes the same concessions as you do: protect minorities (`you') and rule gently. They won't have to accept your core values, your core values change gradually over time and there is nothing you can do about. On the other hand, your own values integrate themselves slowly into the other subcultures as well.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Those not willing to join and fight, are relying on and benefiting from those that are. How does a nation inspire a bunch of 18 to 21 year olds to fight for their country once there is no sense of country left? When we've become nothing more than a bunch of competing interests that have no sense of belonging to a larger community and no sense of comradery?

Again, this is nothing new and has little to do with America being a melting pot, individualization is a consequence of industrialization and democratization. It's at the very core of the US Constitution (the pursuit of happiness bit) and most other modern Western countries.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Probably, Nicko thought, that the character in that movie portrays a point of view similar to yours.

Taliesin

If that is the case, then he should write more clearly. I was pretty tired at the time I read his response, but I'm not sure how else to take "no one escapes their past", not followed up by clarification. Simply using quotes like that without clarification of what his point is, makes it pretty easy to misunderstand but If I did misunderstand him, then I will apologize.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Nicko;3231859][quote=DLQ2006;3231792]

Taliesin is right, the quote is from a movie. I just found it amusing and it came to mind when I read this thread. Just food for thought I guess.

Well then I'm sorry if I misunderstood what your point was of quoting this but it's pretty hard to understand what your point is, when it is followed up by saying that you hope my essay comes true (the thesis of which is that America might become so fractured that it collapses). And I can't believe I missed this the first time..........did you actually say that you hope this comes true, and then suggest that this is because the world would be better off living as a true global world? If a unit as hugely diverse as the U.S. cannot be held together, how would an entity far larger (the one global world) be held together?Did you major in the Art of Paradoxology or something?

You're essay seems to express a fear that American values (whatever they are) are somehow being changed by minorities. I wonder if this is a rational fear or not, as you don't give any concrete examples.

Your response further bolsters my thesis. People have to ask what our values as a nation even are at this point. I thought I had made it pretty clear but I'll summarize for you what my essay was trying to express. History has shown that as groups grow too big, they fracture. I can't think of any other country, throughout the course of history, where belief systems are as diverse as ours. A sense of a shared set of basic values is vital to holding a large group together. Once the fringes of a group become so diverse that they openly advocate the destruction of the group, the bubble is going to pop so to speak. Like a bubble that only has so much elasticity to stretch before it pops. Our metaphoric "elasticity" is our huge amount of tolerance for diversity of values and beliefs. Like anything in life, there has to be a breaking point for it. I didn't give many concrete examples because there are so many and they do not fall along racial or ethnic lines if that is what you are looking for. Communism for example.

As for moral superiority of American values over all others, well I think Iraq has proved that to be unfounded.

Well, I'm speechless on that one. Okay, maybe not. What makes us morally superior to Iraq has nothing to do with what tactics we've used or not used in that war if that is what you are getting at. It also has nothing to do with whether or not we had a moral obligation to go there in the first place if that is what you are getting at. I'm so sick of the moral equivalence argument I can just puke at this point. What makes us morally superior to countries where radical Islam exists as more than a tiny minority, is the type of society we have created compared to the type of societies they exist as. We are morally superior to them because we don't behead randomly captured civilians in the name of our God. That we don't commit honor killings against women for being raped. That we don't slaughter innocent women and children in the name of our God. And that we don't do a million other things that violate the basic laws of humanity.

External to our military tactics, we are a morally superior culture because of the type of society we have created compared to theirs. The fact that admitting such is grounds for being scorned in today's world, is just further proof of the level of tolerance for different ideas that we've gotten tol.

It's all fine and dandy to speak of Moral superiority as long as we still have the luxury of keeping it short of being killed for it. When Germany was carpet bombing cities in England, did the British say "well, we just can't stoop to their level"? Hell no..........they freaking carpet bombed city after city in Germany. Why? Was it because they were barbarians that were morally equivalents to the Nazis? No........they didn't have the luxury of acting in a way that would preserve their refined sense of moral superiority. They were too busy fighting to preserve their lives and for their national survival.

You want no part of a new world order.

Being a part of the global community is fine for things like trading with other countries. What I want no part of is the erasing of borders, cultures, and national identity. Like I've said in the original post, western democracies that tolerate dissent and diversity are anomologies in terms of human evolution as most societies are not held together by things that exert less control than being ruled by an iron fist to maintain the unity of command. Imagine how much force will need to be exerted to maintain unity of command of an entity as huge and hugely diverse as a one world order.......Thanks anyways but I don't believe that chains and shackles are the natural condition for humankind to live under. If the one world order comes to fruition, it will have to do so insideously enough that people don't notice in large enough numbers to cause a revolution. I guess a death by a thousand cuts will be how western civilization dies out, and that is exactly what I want no part of.

[probablecause]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

I think my country, Canada got it right with embracing multi-culturalism instead of the melting pot.

I don't think so. How many times has Quebec tried to break away from Canada again?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

I don't think so. How many times has Quebec tried to break away from Canada again?

Quebec usually tries to break away for political, rather than cultural, reasons. Quebec starts to talk separation when they are dissatisfied with the Federal government ... just as Western Canada starts to mumble about separation for the same reasons.

Fundamentally, Quebec's culture isn't that different from mainstream Canadian culture; they're both European based. The difference certainly isn't as much as the multitude of other cultures that successfully mix within the mainstream culture.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

I don't think so. How many times has Quebec tried to break away from Canada again?

Never. Oh, they had referendums, but I wouldn't really call that trying very hard.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Using the concept of diversity in the context of ideas, values, and belief systems, is there a point at which we are at risk of collapsing as a nation?

No. Only morons believe this kind of thing.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

When looking at history, there has been a pattern that has been repeated over and over again. That pattern is that as a nation grows up and evolves, if it ever gets to the point of being too big and too diverse, it will fragment and collapse from the inside because there is only so much control that can be exerted to keep a country together once it gets so big and so diverse. From African tribes to empires, the nature of human sociology in a macro sense of large groups of people is that groups fragment as they get bigger.

Got any specific examples of that, or are you just venting outta your @ss?

[probablecause]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Quebec usually tries to break away for political, rather than cultural, reasons. Quebec starts to talk separation when they are dissatisfied with the Federal government ... just as Western Canada starts to mumble about separation for the same reasons.

Fundamentally, Quebec's culture isn't that different from mainstream Canadian culture; they're both European based. The difference certainly isn't as much as the multitude of other cultures that successfully mix within the mainstream culture.

I would consider the fact that Quebec being predominently French and doesn't recognize English as an official language--as being culturally significant. They have more cultural ties to France than to England it seems.

I imagine the same sort of thing could happen in the American southwest. I think its entirely possible that that region could form a quasi independent state someday as Spanish is so prevelant.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=OreoCookie;3231890]

As long as everybody believes in the coexistence of different belief systems and accepts modern Democratic principles (most central here is rule of the majority with protections for minorities), you're safe.

My point is that there are cultures that do not believe in and accept modern democratic principle. There are cultures that do not believe in the coexistence of different belief systems. That is what I was talking about when I said that those that are soft in terms of tolerance, melt. Those that are hardcore about not having tolerance for diversity in beliefs, do not melt. When the larger culture has a huge amount of tolerance and the smaller subcultures have none, which side do you think will be making the concessions? Will these subcultures become more like us, or will we become more like them in the quest for embracing diversity of belief systems?

I don't think it's correlated to diversity, but size per se. China spans various regions with large cultural differences, ditto for Russia.

China is a good example of a country where a large group has to be ruled with a firm hand to keep it from fracturing. Russia is a good example of an empire (the soviet empire) that fell because of fighting between various ethnic groups. The Soviet Union wasn't able to exert the amount of force it would have taken to keep such a large group together short of continuing to perform purges. Thank God they evolved past such barbarism.

Historically, autocratic regimes, be it kingdomes, plutocracies, oligarchies or whatnot, have proven to be less stable than democracies. The reason for their failure is simple: they have suppressed a large share of the population. It's fair to say that the different layers of society (be it farmers, nobles, craftsmen and merchants) have had different cultures as well. When sizeable portions of the population do not have any influence on political decisions, internal pressure mounts and it eventually blows up.

Exactly, which is why so many leaderships in the world have ruled with tyranny and fear. I don't argue the point that it takes a huge amount of force being exerted to keep large and diverse groups together. Sadam Hussein is a very bad man who needed to be taken out of power, but he never fooled himself about the nature of his people. So far, it has taken brutal force to keep them from all killing each other. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating what it seems like I am. I'm just trying to look honestly at the nature of people and it looks to me as though we might not all hold the same basic values afterall. We tend to believe that things like freedom, justice, liberty, et cetera are things that all humans naturally want. It doesn't appear so. It appears as though there are people who these things are not the most important things.

We keep talking about exporting Democracy to places like Iraq. Democracy is a tool used by those who love freedom and equality. The one person one vote does not quarantee liberty. The one person one vote in places like Iraq just become a different kind of tool for the majority to oppress the minority. Freedom and liberty are not things that can be exported. Cultures have to want those things for themselves and be willing to fight and die for them. Our nation started out as a bunch of dirt poor farmers being ruled by the crown and those farmers picked up the pitchforks and fought for what they wanted more than they valued their own lives. That can't be taught or forced.

That's what democracy is about. There is never unity in thought and values, even if the group is very homogeneous such as in Japan. This unity of thought is an illusion that nationalists like to feed when there is really none.

Liberal Democracies can withstand diversity in thought and values as long as there is enough of what unites people together to make them believe in their larger community. I can think of no time in U.S. history where so many people feel absolutely no connection with America and with other Americans. Where so many people view themselves as citizens of the world that just happen to live here because it's where they have the most economic opportunities. People are not inspired to defend their larger community when all that holds them together is geographically living in the same place.


It isn't a coincidence that the most successfully practical and utilitarian societies in the world were not made up by Philosophical materialists and utilitarians. They were made up and led by Theists. Those of us that are lucky enough to be the heirs to a society that was founded by theists, need to understand that materialism and utilitarianism has never and will never inspire people to fight and die for a cause larger than themselves. I'll concede that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine might not have been theists, but they were not the majoirity. They were an important minority, but still a minority. What will be the glue that holds us together once there is no shared set of values that people feel are worth fighting and dying for? Will the glue be our level of prosperity? I see that as something that makes us weaker because we become more self involved and less involved in comradery between countrymen. We just become isolated, all doing our own thing. A devout Christian that lives in prosperity, will care less that his neighbors are devout Muslims if he can still come home, see his wife, play X-box, or do whatever else it it is that makes him happy. That is a force that also probably makes it so that there are less people out there already living here, that are willing to give up their quality of life in order to tear down our country. So, while all of us being able to go out to applebees, play X-box games, watch our kids play soccer together, et cetera, et cetera is something that can hold us together internally, it will never be enough to inspire people to give up their quality of life to go fight and die against something that threatens that. It takes believing in something higher than that. Why should a 19 year old be inspired to do that when he or she can think to themselves that someone else will go instead? The problem will be when there are not enough of those types left that the rest of us rely on because we've become a society of philosophical materialsim and utilitarianism.

It's democracy and a belief in diversity. There will always be a fringe portion that doesn't believe in these ideals and for the other 95 %, there is usually disagreement, what these ideals mean if you apply them to a certain situation, but there is consensus that these ideals are good.

And you don't believe that this can be eroded?

If you want to apply this to the current situation in Iraq, then your former arguments don't fit here at all. America is still dominated by WASPs in politics, muslims (a very small minority in the US) has virtually no say in American politics (only one Member of Congress is muslim), if that is what you are aiming for.

It doesn't take the entire country converting to Islam or not being "dominated by wasps in politics". All it takes is the majority making concessions to the minorities because the desire to embrace all and every belief system trumps all else. The tolerance for dissent becomes so huge that even the type of dissent that openly advocates the destruction of our way of life is given the same amount of respect as all other opinions. That will cause enough fracturing among the rest of us that the will to fight for a shared sense of basic values will be lost.

Again, I'm not saying we are at a point where this will all happen tomorrow. A death by a thousand cuts is the metaphor that I use to best explain what I am talking about. I'd much rather have the erosion of our culture be something that most people view as a credible threat, instead of this insideous erosion where so many people don't see it happening.

The same thing has happened more than once and the US hasn't broken apart (and won't break apart this time), e. g. during Vietnam.

Vietnam is about the time the type of erosion I am talking about started. Like I said, its a slow, insideous direction we are moving in. Not something that comes falling down over one war or one issue.

In a few years' time, the majority of Americans will be latinos. This has a few no-brainer consequences: the majority of Americans will be Catholic and America will become a Catholic and not a protestant country. Plus, there will be more and more Spanish in everyday life. The former majority (`wasps') will have to hope that the new majority makes the same concessions as you do: protect minorities (`you') and rule gently. They won't have to accept your core values, your core values change gradually over time and there is nothing you can do about. On the other hand, your own values integrate themselves slowly into the other subcultures as well.

Again, the degree to which we become some kind of hybrid culture where "melting" occurs, is proportional to how much tolerance for diversity the subcultures have. The "more and more Spanish in everyday life" is a perfect example. Those that speak Spanish rather than learn English are an example of a culture that is hardcore about not melting. What if the Germans, the French, the Italians, The polish, et cetera had all been as hard core about not melting. Is something as basic as even our common language not important? If it isn't important, why are we writing all of this to each other in English? How would it work out if we were all coming to this board and writing in a thousand different languages?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

My point is that there are cultures that do not believe in and accept modern democratic principle. There are cultures that do not believe in the coexistence of different belief systems. That is what I was talking about when I said that those that are soft in terms of tolerance, melt. Those that are hardcore about not having tolerance for diversity in beliefs, do not melt. When the larger culture has a huge amount of tolerance and the smaller subcultures have none, which side do you think will be making the concessions? Will these subcultures become more like us, or will we become more like them in the quest for embracing diversity of belief systems?


Is something as basic as even our common language not important? If it isn't important, why are we writing all of this to each other in English? How would it work out if we were all coming to this board and writing in a thousand different languages?

You really need to travel. Visit China, India, middle east, africa, europe even. Most , nay the vast majority of people in the world aren't that much different from yourself. So what if more people will be speaking spanish and chinese in the next 20 years? It will happen so gradually that you won't even notice it. English is after all a combination of many different languages.

----

Whats all this talk about cultures that don't believe in cooexisting with others??? Where do you get this stuff from? Are you talking about the Taliban? Insurgents in Iraq? Are you suggesting there are actually enough of these people to take over the entire world? Because if that is what you're afraid of you're in for a long wait.

It is true that terrorism is the new danger of the 21st century, but it is hardly the global movement you make it out to be.


"It isn't a coincidence that the most successfully practical and utilitarian societies in the world were not made up by Philosophical materialists and utilitarians. They were made up and led by Theists."

One last point. Please tell me where these magical people are hiding? I have been all over the world and even in the most remote mountain range, desert, or jungle, most people recognize the benefits of belonging and taking part in the global community.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wrong. Any country embracing multi-culturalism is heading for a fall, since it balkanises the place. Check out the current events in the UK for a glimpse of where you're headed.

Britain 'must scrap multiculturalism' - Britain - Times Online

I didn't make that comment. I erroroneously forgot to add quote marks to it. I was arguing against that point.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=lpkmckenna;3232068]No. Only morons believe this kind of thing.

Or someone who has made the observation that this pattern has been repeated over and over again since the beginning of humankind. One that is not so brainwashed that they can't even question whether or not it could happen in their country.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Got any specific examples of that, or are you just venting outta your @ss?

There are tons of examples of groups that have been and are being held together by dictatorship styles of rule. Most third world countries where various sects and tribes all kill each other if not for the brutal force that keeps them more afraid of their leadership than each other, are ruled in this way. The way Sadam led Iraq is an example. Afghanistan is an example. North Korea, Iran, China. How about the killing fields of Cambodia? Did Pol Pot not commit purges to rid the dissenters. Were the purges under Stalin and Hitler not to purge their cultures of political dissenters as to maintain the unity of command?

From the collapse of huge empires like the Soviet Union and Roman empire, to observing less sophisticated Tribes in Africa, groups tend to fragment as they get bigger unless force is exerted to keep them together. This was one of many concepts that I remember from various sociology and multi-cultural courses in college. While I am only using that as a framework to extrapolate ideas and questions from, I assumed that this pattern is something that falls under common knowledge of basic sociological history. Democracies extremely tolerant of diversity of belief systems that are also not willing to resort to extreme measures, are still an experiment because they are relatively new compared to most of the styles of rule in the course of human history. I don't think that exploring this issue makes me a moron, but go ahead and keep rolling your eyes and trying to turn this discussion into a tit for tat of insults. My kids are hitting their teens and I need the practice of engaging them on their level.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I didn't make that comment. I erroroneously forgot to add quote marks to it. I was arguing against that point.

No worries.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Nicko;3232200]

You really need to travel. Visit China, India, middle east, africa, europe even. Most , nay the vast majority of people in the world aren't that much different from yourself. So what if more people will be speaking spanish and chinese in the next 20 years? It will happen so gradually that you won't even notice it. English is after all a combination of many different languages.

----

well, thanks for the advice but I lived in Europe for 3 years. Traveled to 7 different countries while there and to germany 3 times since. I've been to Turkey but no other Middle eastern countries. You wanted to know what one of the things was that struck me the most? That people in all of those countries relied on a common language to communicate. That language is English. On the beaches of Greece in my younger days, I remember how a Turkish Man carried on a conversation with a German man.......In ENGLISH. And I think you might notice it when not only are people that speak Spanish demanding to be spoken to in Spanish, but so are people from Asian countries and everywhere else. Are you really suggesting that we can function like that?

Whats all this talk about cultures that don't believe in cooexisting with others??? Where do you get this stuff from? Are you talking about the Taliban? Insurgents in Iraq? Are you suggesting there are actually enough of these people to take over the entire world? Because if that is what you're afraid of you're in for a long wait.

I've never suggested that any subculture or fringe group in the U.S. will ever get so big that it will take over. What I am contemplating is whether or not our culture can withstand a level of diversity that should ever get to be one where more people identify themselves with being part of a subculture than they do the larger culture and what that will to us as a whole. Whether or not it will cause us to become balkanized into smaller, independant regions because of the loss of a sense of shared basic values. Everything has its limits.

It is true that terrorism is the new danger of the 21st century, but it is hardly the global movement you make it out to be.

It doesn't have to be does it? All it has to be is one that is catered to because we have become so weak. Look at the rhetoric coming from that nutcase in Iran. He threatens nuclear annihilation. He hasn't had to do one thing militarily to make Western leaderships kowtow to him. All he's had to do is to speak tough rhetoric. Meanwhile, our leaderships are too afraid to even say who our enemy is. They can't even call them Islamofascists without being hammered by their populaces and held up as an example of everything evil and bigoted. Another example is Chavez. He comes here and says worse things about our country than hitler or Stalin ever did and what do our fearless leaders say when he is re-elected? Something to the effect that they are looking forward to working on improved relations with him. Our leaders can't even sound tough, much less be tough. What did Bolton get for trying to stand up for the interests of the U.S. (God forbid)? Islamic fundamentalists are emboldened because they view us as weak and they are right.

I predict that within the next few years, Iran does something devastating or is in the position to blackmail the world with the capability to do something devastating. What I understand about the intel coming from there is that we have no idea how deep their nuclear reactor is buried and where or how deeply buried their nuclear materials are. That leads me to question just how much our intel knows about their delivery systems. At any rate, the suicide belts they are working on in the form of nuclear weapons can't be taken out with the type of air raids that Isreal was able to do to Iraq. An all out invasion would have to occur in order to find and take over their nuclear reactor sites.

One last point. Please tell me where these magical people are hiding? I have been all over the world and even in the most remote mountain range, desert, or jungle, most people recognize the benefits of belonging and taking part in the global community.

I'm not arguing that there aren't benefits to taking part in the global community. I'm not suggesting we stop trading with other countries. That our businesses should stop doing business with them. That we should stop having relations with them. That is a far cry from a one world government wouldn't you agree?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

There are tons of examples of groups that have been and are being held together by dictatorship styles of rule. Most third world countries where various sects and tribes all kill each other if not for the brutal force that keeps them more afraid of their leadership than each other, are ruled in this way. The way Sadam led Iraq is an example. Afghanistan is an example. North Korea, Iran, China. How about the killing fields of Cambodia? Did Pol Pot not commit purges to rid the dissenters. Were the purges under Stalin and Hitler not to purge their cultures of political dissenters as to maintain the unity of command?

I didn't ask for an irrelevant list of nations held together by tyranny.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

From the collapse of huge empires like the Soviet Union and Roman empire, to observing less sophisticated Tribes in Africa, groups tend to fragment as they get bigger unless force is exerted to keep them together. This was one of many concepts that I remember from various sociology and multi-cultural courses in college. While I am only using that as a framework to extrapolate ideas and questions from, I assumed that this pattern is something that falls under common knowledge of basic sociological history. Democracies extremely tolerant of diversity of belief systems that are also not willing to resort to extreme measures, are still an experiment because they are relatively new compared to most of the styles of rule in the course of human history. I don't think that exploring this issue makes me a moron, but go ahead and keep rolling your eyes and trying to turn this discussion into a tit for tat of insults. My kids are hitting their teens and I need the practice of engaging them on their level.

In other words: no, you don't have specific examples of modern democracies splitting apart because of "bigness" or "diversity."

The US is the world's largest liberal democracy. It is extremely pluralistic, with regions that are distinct in religious, political, and cultural regards. Despite that and it's immense size, it is in no danger of falling apart.

Your trash-can sociology theories don't impress anyone.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

I would consider the fact that Quebec being predominently French and doesn't recognize English as an official language--as being culturally significant. They have more cultural ties to France than to England it seems.

Rubbish. English and French are the official languages recognized by the federal government across Canada. The province of Quebec only recognizes French as an official language for provincial justification, but that token policy has little teeth since anglos are still entitled to government services and education in English.

Originally Posted by probablecause 

I imagine the same sort of thing could happen in the American southwest. I think its entirely possible that that region could form a quasi independent state someday as Spanish is so prevelant.

Regions don't secede for reasons of language alone.

[Chuckit]

All of this "anomaly of evolution" talk is missing the point. The entire modern world is anomalous. We have nearly instant communication, nearly instant travel, nearly infinite access to information. The world has changed a lot. What happened with previous civilizations is not necessarily relevant.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Meanwhile, our leaderships are too afraid to even say who our enemy is. They can't even call them Islamofascists without being hammered by their populaces and held up as an example of everything evil and bigoted.

So because they don't use your politically charged neologisms, that means they're weak?

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Another example is Chavez. He comes here and says worse things about our country than hitler or Stalin ever did and what do our fearless leaders say when he is re-elected? Something to the effect that they are looking forward to working on improved relations with him. Our leaders can't even sound tough, much less be tough. What did Bolton get for trying to stand up for the interests of the U.S. (God forbid)? Islamic fundamentalists are emboldened because they view us as weak and they are right.

You would rather we start a war and have a bunch of people get killed for no good reason? He's talking. If all Hitler or Stalin did was talk, nobody would've given half a hump about them either. As long as he's just talking, talking back seems like a reasonable response.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=lpkmckenna;3232652]I didn't ask for an irrelevant list of nations held together by tyranny.

Well.........nations being held together by tyranny is kind of a key element of the whole concept but you are too interested in being snide to pay attention I guess.

In other words: no, you don't have specific examples of modern democracies splitting apart because of "bigness" or "diversity."

Futher demonstrating that you either haven't comprehended what I said or are purposely trying not to. How many times have I said throughout this entire discussion that Democracies that get this big and diverse are both relatively new and are an anomoly in terms of how most countries throughout time have been ruled? I've made the distinction between those kept together using extreme measures and a Democracy such as ours where whether or not we will repeat the same pattern of rising and falling that other large groups have is still unknown. If you are not interested in reading and trying to understand the whole point then by all means don't but don't turn what I said into something different and then keep arguing that instead of what I actually said. It's about as transparant of a tactic as it gets.

Giving examples of liberal democracies that have become fractured because they got too big and diverse is not something I need to do to back up my points, because that is not a point I ever made in the first place. My point was that there are examples of everything from empires to tribes that have repeated a pattern of rising and falling. I'm no history buff but surely you've heard about the rise and fall of the British Empire that at one point held dominion over more than 400 million people which at the height of their empire, represented more than half the world's population. You are aware of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire? The rise and fall of Spain? Of the Ottoman empire? Of the various Arab empires and Chinese dynasties? It doesn't take a historian to be cognizant of the phenomenon that has occured throughout the course of history of groups growing in size and power and then collapsing.

Your trash-can sociology theories don't impress anyone.

Oh rearry..........cuz I came hewe to impwess people wike woo and now my widdle, iddle fewings are rearry, rearry, rearry huwt.

[DLQ2006]

Posted by Chuckit.
"All of this "anomaly of evolution" talk is missing the point. The entire modern world is anomalous. We have nearly instant communication, nearly instant travel, nearly infinite access to information. The world has changed a lot. What happened with previous civilizations is not necessarily relevant."

No, it's not missing the point. Can you give me an example of another country that is both as big as our is and as diverse as ours is, that also has the level of tolerance for diversity of thoughts and belief systems as ours does? Maybe there is one out there that I can't think of but if there isn't, than the point that our culture is an anomoly compared to how most diverse and big groups have been ruled in the world is a valid point. What is your point about how the modern world is one of instant communication, travel, and such? What is the relationship between that and whether or not the U.S. could become fractured?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Nicko used a quote from a fictional character from the movie "V for Vendetta", in which a fictional England is portrayed a few years in our future that suddenly found a solution to all problems of society, whereby the US went down because of its liberalism. Here is the full quote:



Probably, Nicko thought, that the character in that movie portrays a point of view similar to yours.

Taliesin

Thanks for shedding light on the situation!

[DLQ2006]

Posted by chuckit.
"So because they don't use your politically charged neologisms, that means they're weak?"
"You would rather we start a war and have a bunch of people get killed for no good reason? He's talking. If all Hitler or Stalin did was talk, nobody would've given half a hump about them either. As long as he's just talking, talking back seems like a reasonable response".



"politically charged neologisms"..........you've got to be kidding. Dictators threaten us and you seem to think that if we would just talk nicely to them and be non-confrontational, they will make nice with us and we can all sit down for tea and talk. This kind of show of weakness just emboldens them. The psychology of a bully is the same whether you are talking about a dictator of a country or a schoolyard bully. The only thing that shuts up a bully is a busted nose. This type of mentality cannot be appeased, persuaded, or negotiated with. If we learned anything from WWll history, at the very least it should be that we cannot appease these kinds of tyrants. We weren't taking Hitler seriously either for all those years that he was "just talking".

Furthermore, we wouldn't have to do nearly as much militarily if we would engage in strong rhetoric and back it up just once. We would be taken seriously instead of taken for a paper tiger that can be pushed and pushed and pushed. Think of how many lives would be saved in the end if we didn't wait until threats turn into bigger threats and then into all out war where our enemies were allowed to get stronger and stronger while we waited for it to get really bad before acting. Like the saying goes "deal with problems while they are still small problems". Our leaders are too afraid to even say who it is we are fighting for God's sakes. We have gotten weaker and weaker as a country. WWll was the last all out war we fought. Since then, it's been these limited wars because we are so unwilling to cause the kind of collateral damage that will result from an all out war. Well, limited wars end in a lot of dead people and no objectives met for our side. For example, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.

[Kerrigan]

My short answer, without even reading the post, is "yes, we will"

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

My point is that there are cultures that do not believe in and accept modern democratic principle. There are cultures that do not believe in the coexistence of different belief systems.

It's not cultures, but societies. These societies still need to learn and mature. Europe went through a lot of different phases of socio-cultural development. It's not coupled to a certain religion, rather a socio-economic factors.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

That is what I was talking about when I said that those that are soft in terms of tolerance, melt. Those that are hardcore about not having tolerance for diversity in beliefs, do not melt. When the larger culture has a huge amount of tolerance and the smaller subcultures have none, which side do you think will be making the concessions?

The smarter and stronger side usually makes concessions. You equate this with weakness, but it's not. As I said, if a culture/society becomes too `hard', it eventually breaks into 1000 pieces by itself. Just take a look at Hitler, Stalin and also China. The reason why China hasn't hit the fan is simple: they have abandoned their basic principles in their cities which are as capitalistic as it gets. As a Chinese friend of mine put it: if you have money, you can do anything. The standard of living continues to rise and eventually larger and larger shares of the population will participate -- or the state ceases to exist.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Will these subcultures become more like us, or will we become more like them in the quest for embracing diversity of belief systems?

Both. In today's world, it's inevitable.
If you are so concerned about this, I'd suggest you read up on Japanese history of the 19th century, how Japan has dealt with this. I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

So far, it has taken brutal force to keep them from all killing each other.

Yes, but the problems have been bottled up. Now the geenie is out of the bottle and we need to deal with the underlying problems which haven't disappeared during Hussein's rule.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating what it seems like I am. I'm just trying to look honestly at the nature of people and it looks to me as though we might not all hold the same basic values afterall. We tend to believe that things like freedom, justice, liberty, et cetera are things that all humans naturally want.

It is what people want. But not all of it. People want to survive, people want to have food on their table, they want safety and most people (be it Americans, Germans or Iraqis) are willing so sacrifice some freedoms for safety -- or rather the illusion thereof.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

It doesn't appear so. It appears as though there are people who these things are not the most important things.

Yes, there are. And it pans across political denominations, religious beliefs and whatnot. Some are willing to infringe your privacy in exchange for safety. Others want the state to have a basic security net against poverty (`social security'). Without going into detail here, after all I don't want to argue the pros and cons of each of them, independently of the political system, people always trade off some liberties for safety.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

We keep talking about exporting Democracy to places like Iraq. Democracy is a tool used by those who love freedom and equality. The one person one vote does not quarantee liberty. The one person one vote in places like Iraq just become a different kind of tool for the majority to oppress the minority.

It's because I don't think they are ready for democracy yet. The will to establish a democratic society has to come from within, it cannot be octroyed onto a society.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Freedom and liberty are not things that can be exported. Cultures have to want those things for themselves and be willing to fight and die for them. Our nation started out as a bunch of dirt poor farmers being ruled by the crown and those farmers picked up the pitchforks and fought for what they wanted more than they valued their own lives. That can't be taught or forced.

Exactly. People have to do it themselves.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Liberal Democracies can withstand diversity in thought and values as long as there is enough of what unites people together to make them believe in their larger community. I can think of no time in U.S. history where so many people feel absolutely no connection with America and with other Americans. Where so many people view themselves as citizens of the world that just happen to live here because it's where they have the most economic opportunities. People are not inspired to defend their larger community when all that holds them together is geographically living in the same place.

I'm sure every generation has claimed the same thing. The world is becoming less and less local, boundaries lose their meaning as most of us are able to travel freely from A to B. I can board a plane and be in the US or Japan within a few hours. This wasn't possible before. Naturally, borders will lose some of their significance.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

It isn't a coincidence that the most successfully practical and utilitarian societies in the world were not made up by Philosophical materialists and utilitarians. They were made up and led by Theists. Those of us that are lucky enough to be the heirs to a society that was founded by theists, need to understand that materialism and utilitarianism has never and will never inspire people to fight and die for a cause larger than themselves. I'll concede that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine might not have been theists, but they were not the majoirity.

I disagree.
Religion isn't needed to inspire people. It inspires some people, no doubt, but it's by no means a precursor to inspiration. But religion is used to justify political and economic decisions quite often: God helps those who help themselves. This gave the `pursuit of happiness' a sort of moral quality. However, this is a principle that transcends religion.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

They were an important minority, but still a minority. What will be the glue that holds us together once there is no shared set of values that people feel are worth fighting and dying for? Will the glue be our level of prosperity? I see that as something that makes us weaker because we become more self involved and less involved in comradery between countrymen. We just become isolated, all doing our own thing.

No, the glue will change as people become increasingly aware the complexity of the world. Just take the Middle East: I dare to say that we would care as much about Iran and Iraq -- if they have no oil -- than we care about most countries on the African continent. We (as in all industrialized nations) are dependent on them. And dependence on others is always a thing that makes people uncomfortable -- including me. Before America became as (economically) powerful as it is today, it was also less dependent on these resources.

What I'm trying to say is the following: people become increasingly aware of their surroundings as the world shrinks. People are challenged with new ideas more often than they used to and those societies who try to resist are doomed to failure. That's what China tried to do in the 19th century. Japan, on the other hand, has learnt its lesson from China and was more pragmatic. The glue changes. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

A devout Christian that lives in prosperity, will care less that his neighbors are devout Muslims if he can still come home, see his wife, play X-box, or do whatever else it it is that makes him happy. ... So, while all of us being able to go out to applebees, play X-box games, watch our kids play soccer together, et cetera, et cetera is something that can hold us together internally, it will never be enough to inspire people to give up their quality of life to go fight and die against something that threatens that.

What does that have to do with being a devout Christian?
As I said, the big change we will see in America is not the invasion by Muslim immigrants, but Catholics -- fellow Christians. As far as I know, latinos tend to be more devout followers in the first place.

Statistically, countries where religion has less influence on everyday politics tend to have a lower crime and poverty rate (that doesn't make religion a bad thing).

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

It takes believing in something higher than that. ... The problem will be when there are not enough of those types left that the rest of us rely on because we've become a society of philosophical materialsim and utilitarianism.

It has always been like that. People are attracted to power. As I said before, utilitarianism has been elevated to a religious principle in the early days. It was one of many principles and it wasn't meant to be the sole guiding principle.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

And you don't believe that this can be eroded?
Sure, everything is possible. And in certain ways, it has. Privacy is under constant attack and people are willing to sacrifice freedom for safety. Which is at the core.

Yes, but this is what America and other Western countries have done -- and in America, religion was used as a facilitator.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

It doesn't take the entire country converting to Islam or not being "dominated by wasps in politics". All it takes is the majority making concessions to the minorities because the desire to embrace all and every belief system trumps all else. The tolerance for dissent becomes so huge that even the type of dissent that openly advocates the destruction of our way of life is given the same amount of respect as all other opinions. That will cause enough fracturing among the rest of us that the will to fight for a shared sense of basic values will be lost.

What groups are you talking about in particular? Latinos? Muslims?
If it's Latinos, then I don't see that they advocate a destruction of the American way of life. Sure, there will be more latin music (instead of country and square dance) on TV, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

If you refer to muslims, then I don't see how this is feasible. The percentage of muslims living in the US is very small and I don't see millions of muslims immigrating into the US to change that.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Vietnam is about the time the type of erosion I am talking about started. Like I said, its a slow, insideous direction we are moving in. Not something that comes falling down over one war or one issue.

I thought you had meant it that way.
Vietnam hasn't failed because of a lack of people with firm convictions. It was the lack of an achievable goal -- like in Iraq. It also has very little to do with an erosion of religious beliefs in the hearts of the people. The major Churches (including the largest, the Catholic Church) were against the invasion of Iraq -- including (from the top of my head, I could be wrong) the particular branch of Church Bush belongs to.

That's why I say religion was only used to justify it, but it was a political, not a religious issue. The same holds for Iran. People are still willing to die for honor and freedom -- if there is a point and a grander scheme. In WW2 there was such a thing, in Vietnam and Iraq 2, there weren't. I have talked to a few Vietnam vets and none of them were ashamed of their time their, quite the contrary. They were proud to have served their country. But despite that fact, none of them felt like Vietnam was a war America had/could have won.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Again, the degree to which we become some kind of hybrid culture where "melting" occurs, is proportional to how much tolerance for diversity the subcultures have. The "more and more Spanish in everyday life" is a perfect example. Those that speak Spanish rather than learn English are an example of a culture that is hardcore about not melting. What if the Germans, the French, the Italians, The polish, et cetera had all been as hard core about not melting. Is something as basic as even our common language not important? If it isn't important, why are we writing all of this to each other in English? How would it work out if we were all coming to this board and writing in a thousand different languages?

First of all, the US doesn't have an official language. At the moment, it is -- for all intents and purposes -- English, but that hasn't always been the case. At one point, the US has had many German immigrants and -- if history had gone on a slightly different path -- you would speak a sort of bastardized German today. Heck, I could have all the discussion on this board in my mother tongue. I still remember when I took my theoretical exam for my driver's permit in PA: right next to me, I had two Chinese, one of them was taking the test, the other one was translating.

The simple fact is: if the majority of Americans speaks Spanish as a mother tongue, why shouldn't it be used as a primary language as well? There are many examples of hybrid languages -- with little ill-effects on the general culture: Jiddish (= Hebrew + German), Catalan (= French + Spanish), Kanak Sprak (= Turkish + German). It's the natural course of history, even if you try to change it, you cannot beat demographics. Again, I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, I'm pragmatic: it will happen and you better adapt to that. With regard to religion, I think the growth of the latino populous in the US will lead to a stronger influence of Christianity, in particular Catholicism, onto everyday life.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

Can you give me an example of another country that is both as big as our is and as diverse as ours is, that also has the level of tolerance for diversity of thoughts and belief systems as ours does? Maybe there is one out there that I can't think of but if there isn't, than the point that our culture is an anomoly compared to how most diverse and big groups have been ruled in the world is a valid point.

What about India or Canada? There are a lot of smaller countries with an even larger diversity and several official languages.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

What is your point about how the modern world is one of instant communication, travel, and such? What is the relationship between that and whether or not the U.S. could become fractured?

Communication and travel are means to transport ideas across oceans and continents in a much quicker way. Information changes how people think about issues and thus have an influence on what you call `threat of having a fractured society'.

[Dakar²]

Well, let's assume this polarization that is occurring in the states continues to escalate. It seems natural that at some point we will splinter off into smaller subsets. After all, we almost did (or we did and came back) during the civil war.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

"politically charged neologisms"..........you've got to be kidding. Dictators threaten us and you seem to think that if we would just talk nicely to them and be non-confrontational, they will make nice with us and we can all sit down for tea and talk. This kind of show of weakness just emboldens them. The psychology of a bully is the same whether you are talking about a dictator of a country or a schoolyard bully. The only thing that shuts up a bully is a busted nose. This type of mentality cannot be appeased, persuaded, or negotiated with. If we learned anything from WWll history, at the very least it should be that we cannot appease these kinds of tyrants. We weren't taking Hitler seriously either for all those years that he was "just talking".

Furthermore, we wouldn't have to do nearly as much militarily if we would engage in strong rhetoric and back it up just once. We would be taken seriously instead of taken for a paper tiger that can be pushed and pushed and pushed. Think of how many lives would be saved in the end if we didn't wait until threats turn into bigger threats and then into all out war where our enemies were allowed to get stronger and stronger while we waited for it to get really bad before acting. Like the saying goes "deal with problems while they are still small problems". Our leaders are too afraid to even say who it is we are fighting for God's sakes. We have gotten weaker and weaker as a country. WWll was the last all out war we fought. Since then, it's been these limited wars because we are so unwilling to cause the kind of collateral damage that will result from an all out war. Well, limited wars end in a lot of dead people and no objectives met for our side. For example, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.

Wow this is hilarious. Your solution is for the US to make a big statement and bomb a country. Not only that, but the goal should be to cause as much colladeral damage as possible? Like a genocide? Thats crazy talk man. And if you really think that the solution to the world's problems is to kill more people, then you are crazy yourself.

OK, I have one little, tiny example. Lybia. Remember Libya? That most evil of countries. A country ruled by an EVIL dictator who blew up airplanes, financed international terror, and had an actual working WMD program and was only steps away from having nukes. Remember them? Oh gee, what happened to Kadafi? Pray tell. Did the US bomb them into the stone age, did they teach them a lesson?

Libya is in everyone's good books now, their economy is BOOMing, international oil companies have moved into the country. In fact, Lybia has even pledged to give every school child in their country a laptop. How positively EVIL of them! And to think, all of this happened and Kadafi is still in power! All of this and not one shot was fired by the US. For shame.


Ofcourse, high oil prices have helped them out alot, I suppose they can thank the US for that too.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Well, let's assume this polarization that is occurring in the states continues to escalate. It seems natural that at some point we will splinter off into smaller subsets. After all, we almost did (or we did and came back) during the civil war.

I don't think there is enough tension for that.
One of the consequences of a `lack of national identity' (if we agree for the moment that this is on a decline) is that people also care less about whether they are part of a larger state (the US) and tendencies to split up America into smaller units will not be an interesting option -- simply because people care less.

[dcmacdaddy]

Why do you assume diveristy of culture will lead to collapse of culture? Do you really think diversity is a causal factor, as opposed to being considered a correlative or coincidental factor, in the decline and disappearance of a culture?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why do you assume diveristy of culture will lead to collapse of culture? Do you really think diversity is a causal factor, as opposed to being considered a correlative or coincidental factor, in the decline and disappearance of a culture?

I think this idea is rooted in fear, fear of something which is perceived as different -- a natural reaction in human beings.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think there is enough tension for that.

Henc why I said 'if it continues to escalate.'

Many claim this is cyclical in nature.

[Wiskedjak]

Do cultures actually "collapse"? Or, do they just change and those people unable to accept change perceive it as "collapse"?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If you want to apply this to the current situation in Iraq, then your former arguments don't fit here at all. America is still dominated by WASPs in politics, muslims (a very small minority in the US) has virtually no say in American politics (only one Member of Congress is muslim), if that is what you are aiming for.

Virtually no say? NO.

As long as Muslims vote, they have the same voice and representation as anyone else in American politics.

If they feel they aren't properly represented, they can vote for someone else or lobby their current representative. Their elected representative does not need to be Muslim in order for American Muslims to have a voice in politics.

After all, see my signature - there were Muslims organized to vote for Bush in both presidential elections, and when last I checked, he claimed he was a Christian.

Again, this is nothing new and has little to do with America being a melting pot, individualization is a consequence of industrialization and democratization. It's at the very core of the US Constitution (the pursuit of happiness bit) and most other modern Western countries.

The pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence. It is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.

[probablecause]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think this idea is rooted in fear, fear of something which is perceived as different -- a natural reaction in human beings.

This sounds like the automated politically correct speak I've heard at universities. Open discussion of this idea is not tolerated at these places--since to discuss these ideas is to disagree with them, and to disagree with is rascist--you are simply required to repeat it.

The problem is that the idea of cultural diversity seems to have changed somewhat. It used to mean that someone from another country would move here and while retaining their own traditions and language would also accept the prevailing culture and learn English. That doesn't mean they couldn't change the prevailing culture by adding aspects of their own traditions-in fact that is encouraged and helps us all from becoming stale.

It would appear that the idea of cultural diversity is evolving into another idea. One in which someone from another country moves here purely out of necessity--they can't make the same money in their country. They have no interest in participating in or contributing to the prevailing culture and in fact seem to resent it--because if they had a choice, they would much rather have stayed where they came from. Instead, they create insular communities that are isolated from their surroundings. They are not interested at all in the well being of other cultures or races living within the same country--but purely promote their own.

If an insular community becomes large enough and remains closed of course they will want their independence someday.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

This sounds like the automated politically correct speak I've heard at universities. Open discussion of this idea is not tolerated at these places--since to discuss these ideas is to disagree with them, and to disagree with is rascist--you are simply required to repeat it.

Huh? Politically correctness has nothing to do with it, on the contrary, I would think that saying racism and fear of people who are different than yourself as being a `natural reaction' is something politically uncorrect to say. However, it's really a tautology, a fact of human existence, nothing more, nothing less. The only way to overcome these fears is to expose yourself to what you fear.

Also, your insinuations regarding free speech at universities are baseless.

Originally Posted by probablecause 

The problem is that the idea of cultural diversity seems to have changed somewhat. It used to mean that someone from another country would move here and while retaining their own traditions and language would also accept the prevailing culture and learn English. That doesn't mean they couldn't change the prevailing culture by adding aspects of their own traditions-in fact that is encouraged and helps us all from becoming stale.

This is also factually incorrect: when America was formed, English was by no means the universally accepted language nor was there such a thing as a genuine American culture. American culture (if there is such a thing) is by its very definition a cundrum of Irish, Polish, German, English and many more cultures.

There have also been cultural communities: my great aunt who has emigrated to the US in the early 1950s has lived in a German community. Blacks and latinos have similar communities -- as do whites. So all this is nothing new.

Originally Posted by probablecause 

It would appear that the idea of cultural diversity is evolving into another idea. One in which someone from another country moves here purely out of necessity--they can't make the same money in their country. They have no interest in participating in or contributing to the prevailing culture and in fact seem to resent it--because if they had a choice, they would much rather have stayed where they came from. Instead, they create insular communities that are isolated from their surroundings. They are not interested at all in the well being of other cultures or races living within the same country--but purely promote their own.

The problem with this argument is that the prevailing culture will (for demographical reasons) change in the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by probablecause 

If an insular community becomes large enough and remains closed of course they will want their independence someday.

So you are saying that you believe there might be a state predominately inhabited by latinos and a state predominately inhabited by whites?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

As long as Muslims vote, they have the same voice and representation as anyone else in American politics.

I was mostly referring to latinos and not muslims. The OP was (from what I understand) switching back and forth. My argument is that there is no danger of US politics being dominated by muslims any time soon. However, latinos will soon make up more than 50 % of the US population, it's them who will determine the `prevailing culture' in the future.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence. It is not an enumerated right in the Constitution.

No, but it gives an idea of the philosophy behind the US Constitution.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

It would appear that the idea of cultural diversity is evolving into another idea. One in which someone from another country moves here purely out of necessity--they can't make the same money in their country. They have no interest in participating in or contributing to the prevailing culture and in fact seem to resent it--because if they had a choice, they would much rather have stayed where they came from. Instead, they create insular communities that are isolated from their surroundings. They are not interested at all in the well being of other cultures or races living within the same country--but purely promote their own.

If an insular community becomes large enough and remains closed of course they will want their independence someday.

What is this American culture you speak of that people aren't embracing? As far as I know the only truely unique things American culture has contributed to the world are jazz and perhaps the hamburger

Ok, but lets see some specific examples, if you have any.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

What is this American culture you speak of that people aren't embracing? As far as I know the only truely unique things American culture has contributed to the world are jazz and perhaps the hamburger

Ok, but lets see some specific examples, if you have any.

We're not unique, but we're certainly the forefront of consumerism. The U.S. is (arguably) the richets, most powerful nation thanks in part by peoples' "need" to buy things. That could be considered American Culture. Fast paced and spending money.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

We're not unique, but we're certainly the forefront of consumerism. The U.S. is (arguably) the richets, most powerful nation thanks in part by peoples' "need" to buy things. That could be considered American Culture. Fast paced and spending money.

Shades of Brave New World.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

We're not unique, but we're certainly the forefront of consumerism. The U.S. is (arguably) the richets, most powerful nation thanks in part by peoples' "need" to buy things. That could be considered American Culture. Fast paced and spending money.

I agree. The irony is that you are saying this on a site where many people obsess over new Apple products and immediately snap up new models as soon as they are released. I've also read posts where people lament about giving up their old computers because "its been with me through good and bad times"--as if it were a person or something. There is hardly a better example of consumerism than Apple and its followers.

[probablecause]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

What is this American culture you speak of that people aren't embracing? As far as I know the only truely unique things American culture has contributed to the world are jazz and perhaps the hamburger

Ok, but lets see some specific examples, if you have any.

I never said we were unique--how is that relevant? I would say we are a combination of many cultures over the years. However, one outstanding example of something that is part of American culture is the English language. Yes, I know we weren't the first to speak it, but it part of the prevailing culture here and has been the standard language for years.

A common language is one of those things that unifies us yet many immigrants will not speak it, nor do they seek to learn it. In the U.S. a person shouldn't have to speak Spanish to order a pizza because the person on the other end won't learn English. As many immigrants should come here as legally permitted, but they should be required to learn English.

"Blah blah", "change is good", "you fear change blah blah blah". Most other countries are not nearly as easy to get into as ours is, nor are they as friendly toward immigrants. Relatively, we're not asking much. Don't break the law and learn English. You can criticize the "consumerism" in the United States as being shallow but that's the reason so many people want to move here. If we didn't have "consumerism" we'd be much poorer and typing on computers salvaged from landfills.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

I never said we were unique--how is that relevant? I would say we are a combination of many cultures over the years. However, one outstanding example of something that is part of American culture is the English language. Yes, I know we weren't the first to speak it, but it part of the prevailing culture here and has been the standard language for years.

A common language is one of those things that unifies us yet many immigrants will not speak it, nor do they seek to learn it. In the U.S. a person shouldn't have to speak Spanish to order a pizza because the person on the other end won't learn English. As many immigrants should come here as legally permitted, but they should be required to learn English.

"Blah blah", "change is good", "you fear change blah blah blah". Most other countries are not nearly as easy to get into as ours is, nor are they as friendly toward immigrants. Relatively, we're not asking much. Don't break the law and learn English. You can criticize the "consumerism" in the United States as being shallow but that's the reason so many people want to move here. If we didn't have "consumerism" we'd be much poorer and typing on computers salvaged from landfills.

I think you may be afraid of change. You go on and on about immigrants learning English but what stops you from learning a little Spanish? Would that kill you? I find it hard to believe that a person answering the phone in a pizza place wouldn't be trying to learn at least a little English. Maybe you caught a person just starting out. God forbid you should ever be an immigrant somewhere and someone is yelling at you to speak German 2 weeks after arriving.