Do borders and culture matter?

[Paprika]

It deeply saddens me to see the amount of blatant racism and white supremacist sentiment on this thread. Sadly, it's a reflection of our deeply racist society.

I'm in favor of unlimited immigration--let people travel, live, and work wherever they choose without being impeded by any borders. Will this result in some social changes? Maybe, even though all evidence shows that immigrants to a country eventually assimilate in large ways to the surrounding culture. Still, even if it does, who cares? Societies should be multicultural.

Obviously, they do matter. But the doctrines of Diversity and Multiculturalism once swallowed are difficult to remove.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Paprika]

Obviously, they do matter. But the doctrines of Diversity and Multiculturalism once swallowed are difficult to remove.

Are you trying to suggest societies should be less diverse, less multicultural?

The implication by necessity is that cultures should be monotethnic and nationalistic. Which is hugely problematic. As recent history suggests. I.e. WW I-II , Holocost, Cold War, and whatever ills to society.

[Elijah John]

It deeply saddens me to see the amount of blatant racism and white supremacist sentiment on this thread. Sadly, it's a reflection of our deeply racist society.

I'm in favor of unlimited immigration--let people travel, live, and work wherever they choose without being impeded by any borders. Will this result in some social changes? Maybe, even though all evidence shows that immigrants to a country eventually assimilate in large ways to the surrounding culture. Still, even if it does, who cares? Societies should be multicultural.

Obviously, they do matter. But the doctrines of Diversity and Multiculturalism once swallowed are difficult to remove.

Moderator Intervention Here is a chance to edit your OP to formulate an explicit question for debate. Or would you rather have it moved to General Chat or Random Ramblings?

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 1 by Paprika]

Obviously, they do matter. But the doctrines of Diversity and Multiculturalism once swallowed are difficult to remove.

Are you trying to suggest societies should be less diverse, less multicultural?

Not only that; I also claim that societies tend towards a large degree of homogenity: the number of ethnic cleansings in history should make that rather clear.

The implication by necessity is that cultures should be monotethnic and nationalistic. Which is hugely problematic.As recent history suggests. I.e. WW I-II , Holocost, Cold War, and whatever ills to society.

Hardly. For one, the reason the Archduke was assassinated by Serbian nationalists was because Serbs wanted freedom from the multinational and multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. And the other World War and the Holocaust was largely promoted by the Nazis precisely on premises such as 'Jews are evil'. So one major cause of the both world wars was precisely too much diversity within nations.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by Paprika]

I tend to agree and I view multiculturalism as a form racism. It is the belief by a dominant culture that it is so superior to the other host cultures that it thinks it can survive and harmonize the lesser cultures. As Sweden is discovering multiculturalism is death by a thousand cuts.

The implication by necessity is that cultures should be monotethnic and nationalistic. Which is hugely problematic. As recent history suggests. I.e. WW I-II , Holocost, Cold War, and whatever ills to society.

I think war can be better averted through trade and capitalism. If you can sell what the other guy wants then the cost of taking what they want becomes prohibitive.

[Paprika]

I tend to agree and I view multiculturalism as a form racism. It is the belief by a dominant culture that it is so superior to the other host cultures that it thinks it can survive and harmonize the lesser cultures.

Immigration of refugees has become the new White Man's Burden.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Paprika]

Obviously, they do matter. But the doctrines of Diversity and Multiculturalism once swallowed are difficult to remove.

Are you trying to suggest societies should be less diverse, less multicultural?

Not only that; I also claim that societies tend towards a large degree of homogenity: the number of ethnic cleansings in history should make that rather clear.

The implication by necessity is that cultures should be monotethnic and nationalistic. Which is hugely problematic.As recent history suggests. I.e. WW I-II , Holocost, Cold War, and whatever ills to society.

Hardly. For one, the reason the Archduke was assassinated by Serbian nationalists was because Serbs wanted freedom from the multinational and multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. And the other World War and the Holocaust was largely promoted by the Nazis precisely on premises such as 'Jews are evil'. So one major cause of the both world wars was precisely too much diversity within nations.

There's two ways to look at this; the way you've articulated above being one of them. The other is to focus on the conditions that gave/give rise to ethnic cleansing and the world wars -- the lack of tolerance for diversity and differences.

Without nationalism (and it's uncle tribalism), there would be no impulse to ethnically cleanse anything.

We aren't 'there' yet as a species to cope in a mostly positive way with multiculturalism, and the evidence for that is history -- the Holocaust and world wars, besides the uncountable smaller events arising from instinctive human tribalism/nationalism. Multiculturalism is a goal, though, and a necessary one until we find exoplanets to colonize. We have to share, and it's best to face that reality rather than fantasize. That applies to both strong proponents for multiculturalism and strong proponents of nationalism.

If both 'sides' of this debate are willing to listen to the concerns of the other with the principle of charity in mind, we can 'ease' ourselves gradually, minimizing the inevitable problems. I agree with Paprika and Any Port in a Storm. They are both picking up on important facts. What I don't agree with is dismissing hope that somehow we can all learn how to tolerate each other. Heck, ya just might learn something new.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Hamsaka]

There's two ways to look at this; the way you've articulated above being one of them. The other is to focus on the conditions that gave/give rise to ethnic cleansing and the world wars -- the lack of tolerance for diversity and differences.

Without nationalism (and it's uncle tribalism), there would be no impulse to ethnically cleanse anything.

We aren't 'there' yet as a species to cope in a mostly positive way with multiculturalism, and the evidence for that is history -- the Holocaust and world wars, besides the uncountable smaller events arising from instinctive human tribalism/nationalism. Multiculturalism is a goal, though, and a necessary one until we find exoplanets to colonize. We have to share, and it's best to face that reality rather than fantasize. That applies to both strong proponents for multiculturalism and strong proponents of nationalism.

If both 'sides' of this debate are willing to listen to the concerns of the other with the principle of charity in mind, we can 'ease' ourselves gradually, minimizing the inevitable problems. I agree with Paprika and Any Port in a Storm. They are both picking up on important facts. What I don't agree with is dismissing hope that somehow we can all learn how to tolerate each other. Heck, ya just might learn something new.

I always thought ethnic cleansing was an evolutionary impulse to create room for one's own genes. Although perhaps I am looking at root causes underlying Nationalism. Underlying multiculturalism is false equivolence.