Background Often do we hear the word "melting pot" being thrown around to describe the fantastic world of multiculturalism - a multi-ethnic society where just everyone comes together and hug, creating one gigantic pot of different cultures melting in to one and other. Yummy. However, this multiculturalist utopia could not be further from the truth. I believe it was Zangwill who noted that "the American pot never happened" by pointing out the fact that although cities like NYC are filled with many different ethnicities, the different ethnicities remain endogamous and create their own enclaves where they settle resulting in ethnically homogenous areas like Little Sicilly, Chinatown, Irish communties, Jewish communities and whatnots. During the 1970's Rhodesian mines were opened resulting in different tribe members leaving their communities behind to work in the mines. Anthropologist Mitchell conducted research amongst these miners and noted that the barracks, lunchrooms and beer huts were highly segregated; people from the tribe x only hung out with other members of x etc. Sometimes people of different background could come together, but omly if they percieved their cultures were similar enough. Another anthropologist (Roosens) has noted that Flems living in Brussels are more ethno-nationalistic than the Flems on the countryside. This because the urban Flems encounter Walloons on a regular basis and are forced to use French in everyday communication, surpressing their native Dutch language. Something that makes them more aware of the distinction between "us" and "them". Man is a very territorial being avoiding settings that are unfamiliar to him, dependent on categorising things into "us" and "them" to create order in the chaos and complexity of social life. To discuss Do you believe 'multiculturalism' works to bring people together or is it more a case of 'multiculturalism' resulting in segregation? Can groups who percieve each other as different ever create a 'melting pot'? Is segregation always bad or can it sometimes be good?
I think the melting pot concept is very different from the multicultural one. The US has had a lot of success in the past integrating immigrants via the melting pot, particularly through most of the 20th Century. 1. There was a dominate culture that everyone recognized as being the dominate culture, and it was held up as the model of what being an "American" was. 2. There was a lot of social pressure to blend in and adopt the dominate American culture. 3. World War II and the persistence of a draft up until the 1970's forced people out of their own subcultures and pushed them together with all sorts of different people in the military that they otherwise wouldn't have met or gotten to know. 4. Immigration was greatly reduced in the 1920's which slowed the growth of first generation immigrant communities. It's harder to assimilate if there is a constant community of newbies of your own ethnicity and language. The US doesn't do any of those things now and have switched to the multicultural model, which assumes that all cultures are more or less equal in values and that one isn't any better than another.
The Nation as a whole is more like a 'mulligan stew', and like any stew some added ingredients improve it while other ingredients might degrade it, and to further complicate matters not everyone's taste is the same. Societies, of which the U.S. and most every Nation today is comprised of many differing in various ways from one another, has brought about the creation of a great many products and services which have improved the lives of everyone. Segregation like integration occurs naturally, and neither segregation nor integration by force achieves unanimity.
Why should it be assumed that the “melting pot” model is the ideal one? I don’t agree that it is necessary for various ethnic groups to integrate into mainstream American society. The whole point of a free and liberal socie-ty is that both individuals and com-munities are at liberty to choose their own lifestyle. Diversity is a beautiful thing; compelling groups to melt into the mainstream is in fact antithetical to diversity.
Anyone cannot be anything. Social interaction is far more complex and intolerant than that. The more diffrtent people that live in the same society, the more conflict will we see. Apart from work and trade there is nothing that will connect the inhabitants. This is why I fully support secession. My dream is to see the world split up in trillions of nations.
Your dream isn't economically viable. The world is more urban and cosmopolitan; different people are having to live together. I am only saying ideas of "nationhood" should be abandoned and cosmopolitanism should be embraced. It is the future.
You seem to have a very specific meaning when you say "cosmopolitanism." What do you mean by that and how can it replace ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and religious identity?
Cosmopolitanism is the reality of different people coexisting and interacting in the same setting/environment. It is not at all about erasing the real ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious boundaries that distinguish people. Ritter stated that he wants to see the world split up into "trillions of nations", with each nation being ethnically homogenous. That is the opposite of cosmopolitanism. Luckily, it is also pure fantasy, because cosmopolitanism is here, and its here to stay no matter how much White nationalists detest it.
I've no idea what White Nationalism has to do with this. That phrase has slipped into all sorts of conversations over the past few months that seem totally forced. But basically you seem to be saying that people will live and work together just fine regardless of race/creed/color/god.
I never said it will be "just fine". It could be and is a rocky road, but over time people are getting used to cosmopolitanism and living in heterogeneous societies. Lifestyle is the main component to this. Lifestyle is becoming standardized around the world. Very few people are left who live nomadic lifestyle, and even less who live hunter/gatherer lifestyle. The urbanized lifestyle will result in greater cosmopolitanism as people gravitate more toward the cities and leave off the pastoral lifestyle just as the nomadic and hunter/gatherer lifestyle is all but gone. White nationalism figures very prominently in this because they are in the forefront of opposing cosmopolitanism. It was in response to a white nationalist that my comments must be contextualized. White nationalists ideally want a White homeland for White people only. The White nationalism "lite" is only less extreme in wanting to maintain a single European/White culture over all of America and compel Americans of different cultures to assimilate into European/White culture. That too is at variance with cosmopolitanism, because cosmopolitanism is not about the dominance of any one single culture or assimilation of different cultures into European culture. Cosmopolitanism allows for different people to maintain their distinct identities while living and interacting with each other.
Well it might be more meaningful to save the White Nationalist critique for actual White Nationalists. For the 99.9999% of everyone else who isn't a white nationalist it sounds like you are trying to change the subject. And in fact, I would argue that White Nationalism is NOT the forefront of opposing cosmopolitanism, that would be resurgent Islam. Anyway what you seem to describe as cosmopolitanism seems to have the side effect of creating low trust societies; the "bowling alone" effect. How do you counter that, or do you just feel that low trust societies are well worth it if you get cosmopolitanism.
I don't know what you mean by "low-trust" societies, but cosmopolitanism ultimately leads to strengthening of individualism over collectivism which is a good thing. A uniform civil code and political system in which no one is given preferential treatment under the law will inevitably result in the break down of tightly-knit ethnic communities that try to act as a "state within a state". For example, orthodox Jews or Amish people are tightly-knit communities that are highly collectivist. But if any individual wants to leave that community and follow his or her individual path, it would be easier than pie in a cosmopolitan society. Individuals are given choice to either participate in their ethnic community or follow an individual path. Legally nothing can stop them from it. Eventually people will become more individualized and ethnic communities less rigid in their separation from others. As for resurgent Islam; it is the desire of the far-right in the West to push out Muslims from society and marginalize them, treat them like 2nd class citizens, and unwanted people, which will drive them into being more separatist. I hear a lot of people constantly complaining about the Muslim "threat" but I wander what do they actually propose should be done with Muslims? Forcibly convert them to another religion? Mass deport millions of the them all back to Muslim countries? Dare I say exterminate them in concentration camps? Indeed there are some people who actually suggest some of these proposals (i.e. White nationalists). No, the solution is to welcome Muslims and watch as they too eventually become individualized into cosmopolitan society, just like every outsider group that came before them such as Jews, Catholics, Irish, Italians, etc.
If an Orthodox Jew or Amish want to drop out of their societies and join the larger one, they can do so. So I'm unclear what your point is. I thought with Cosmopolitanism those subcultures wouldn't exist. "Low-trust" societies are a common descriptor in social science when discussing communities and cultures. If you are not familiar with that term you may not have a very good grounding in what you are pretending to be knowledgeable about. Those groups became assimilated into a common culture (I'm including Jews in that since their assimilation rates are quite high, even though there is still a separate Jewish community). That doesn't sound like cosmopolitanism at all. So you are taking credit for something that isn't really part of your favorite philosophy.
In cosmopolitanism, subcultures cannot operate as a "state within a state" nor be completely cut off or isolated if members of the ethnic group want to function in society. But they exist, and even possess their own neighborhoods and "enclaves", but those ethnic neighborhoods and enclaves are integrated into the broader city and cannot function independent of it but are interdependent. Don't forget that right now there is cosmopolitanism (more or less), unless you are living in rural Alabama or someplace like that. Well I haven't heard this term. Anyways, from what I gather, it means a society where people don't look after each other's interests that much, but are primarily concerned with their own. I already hinted at the fact that cosmopolitanism leads to greater individualism and lesser collectivism. I think this is a good thing. So if that's the implication of a "low-trust" society, I have no problem with it. Your original point is that if people don't have a sense of nationhood or collective identity people will fracture and the social fabric doesn't remain durable. I think this is actually a good thing as collectivism is basically the mentality of being sheep and results in less critical thinking and political dissent. Let people look after themselves; or if they wish form their own mini communities to look after each other. The State's job is not to foster social cohesion, the State is only there to maintain law and order and provide infrastructure and security. New York City is one of the most cosmopolitan places in the world; always has been. All these groups (Jews, Italians, Eastern Europeans) concentrated themselves in New York and are flourishing in cosmopolitanism. The quintessential cosmopolitan is a Brooklyn Jew; well educated, liberal, and adjusted to his surroundings. The common culture you speak of is not "White European" culture; it is a uniquely evolved urban culture. You won't find many Jews or Italians living in non-cosmopolitan, rural Alabama.
I think you are having a conversation with someone in your head. I didn't mention White European culture nor am I from rural Alabama. With your previous multiple comments about White Nationalism, it's apparent that you have pre prepared talking points (even if they're just in your head) that have little to do with what I'm saying.
The historical background of the formation of the French Community in Belgium was the territorial expansion of the Principality of Liège since 980. The French Community of Belgium includes 4.5 million people and 3.6 million live in the Walloon Region. Territorial borders were redrawn numerous times in the last ten centuries and there are seeds of for potential border disputes and conflicts in Europe, which is why Europe is culpable of starting two world wars.
Human societies are not perfect. They never have been and they never will be. Getting people to get a long and accept each other as equals who deserve to be treated fairly is as difficult as eliminating crime and poverty. While difficult we have made enormous progress in America in the last few decades and the world in general is a lot less racist and bigoted than it used to be. For this trend to continue we need to promote more progressive and egalitarian policies. With that being said I will answer your questions..... I don't personally care how multicultural or monocultural a society is. What I am concerned with is treating people fairly. This quote is consistent with my values: "As long as I have any choice in the matter, I shall live only in a country where civil liberty, tolerance and equality of all citizens before the law prevail." - Albert Einstein Now if different types of people are going to live in a society that values liberty, tolerance and equality shouldn't they learn to get a long? Multiculturalism is a word that essentially means tolerating diversity. I personally like living in a Multicultural society and talking to diverse people. I just think that how diverse a society is is less important than how we treat one another. Egalitarianism is what is important. If you have that then people can learn to get a long regardless of differences. Yes, because perception of differences is not the same thing as giving social importance to them. I can get a long with anyone regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture etc. so long as I recognize that they are a person and our differences don't matter. Segregation is fundamentally wrong in my opinion if it means that you don't want to associate with certain people as if something is wrong with them or you hate them or can't accept them for what ever reason. People naturally self-segregate because they feel more comfortable with people like them. Most people are born in to a community full of people who look and act like them. They accept that community's customs as their culture because that is what they are familiar with. But that doesn't mean that you can't appreciate or experience other cultures and there is nothing wrong with cultures blending together. So I am against segregation when it comes to the attitude of exclusion. What can be good is when a community fights for its own interests or tries to improve itself and does that by interacting among members of the group. In the Malcolm X movie starring Denzel Washington Malcolm had evolved in his views on integration and getting a long with Whites to the point where he said that he was willing to accept cooperation with Whites to the point that they could help their cause but Blacks still needed to stick together to help themselves. So I don't think segregation is a good at all. I don't have a problem with communities socializing among themselves and promoting their own interests for self-determination. So I don't care about the existence of Little Italy or Chinatown or Black Churches. When you have an attitude of exclusion e.g. "You can't shop here", "You can't work here", "You can't sit here" etc. then we have a problem.
我們不需要住在一起，相互和平地互動。
Like those living in Anchorage, Alaska and those living in Miami, Florida? Considering a land area of 148,300 sq km, splitting the world into a single trillion nations would result in each nation being 0.0001483 sq km or 148.3 sq meters which is a little more than 12 x 12 meters. As the worlds population is only a little more than 7.5 billion we would have a lot of unoccupied nations with each nation comprised of a single person. Were you quoting Ritter and if so from where did you source the quote? It should be noted that peaceful societies are generally somewhat homogeneous, and can be quite different from one another yet interact peacefully with one another. Essentially you are making the claim that those who disagree are racists? We all better agree then, huh? Better yet, let's deal from a fresh deck which lacks race cards, or any form of wild cards applying only the face value of each card.
Why are you asking me? You should ask Ritter who proposed the idea of creating a trillion nations. Of course I think he used the word "trillion" for literary effect, didn't mean it literally. And why do you assume he means the land mass of the world should be divided up proportionately? I did indeed quote Ritter and if you bother to read the thread you will find his original remarks proceeded by my quoting him. Cosmopolitan places are doing a lot better than homogenous ones. The commercial centers of the world are cosmopolitan, New York, Los Angeles, Singapore, Mumbai, Dubai, Sao Paulo, London, and all major cities. Racially and ethnically homogenous places are the most backwards. For example, I don't think there is much cosmopolitanism in Somalia, or Arkansas, West Virginia and Mississippi (the three poorest States of the Union) for that matter.
I did indeed quote Ritter and if you bother to read the thread you will find his original remarks proceeded by my quoting him.[/QUOTE] Your post, I responded to was addressed to 'Lil Mike' and I thought you were referring to a different 'Ritter' not remembering the handles of all those posting, and looking back you're correct he did say 'trillionS' of nations which pretty much require dividing the land more or less equally if every nation was to require occupation and have enough land area to provide a shelter. But I feel he has a point, that 'large AND populous' nations are able to impose their will upon smaller ones, right or wrong. I assume you mean New York City, and would include Detroit, Michigan also a major city? But are these places actually cosmopolitan or simply a large number of different homogeneous communities who live and socialize apart but interact with one another for the purpose of business and acquisition of their needs and wants? I'll accept that as your opinion, although I fully accept that we, humans, all belong to a common species but the communities in which we individually exist are creations of the inhabitants which the homogeneity of greatly reduces conflict. That does not preclude the ability to interact with others within the framework of mutually acceptable laws. Have you any realistic figures of the number of "white nationalists"? or "black nationalists"? Does 'racial solidarity' result in a more cosmopolitan society?
Seems like you are also agreeing with Socialism as well then. It has the same premise "rich and powerful impose their will upon the poor and weak because they own most of the land and means of production". That's why socialists/leftists tend to advocate "land reforms" and "redistribution". You just defined cosmopolitanism: "different homogenous communities who live and socialize apart but interact with one another for the purpose of business and acquisition of their needs and wants"....sounds like the textbook definition of cosmopolitanism to me. Hard to even estimate the number of people who subscribe to an ideology. As for racial solidarity, it's not a bad thing if its for a good purpose. If Blacks have "racial solidarity" because historically and presently they are discriminated and got the short end of the stick; and their solidarity is a means to redress that problem, then such racial solidarity is a good thing. But White racial solidarity means "let's consolidate our own domination of the country at the expense of the minorities"...that is an example of negative racial solidarity.
Your words, not mine. Quote Originally Posted by Cherub786 Cosmopolitan places are doing a lot better than homogenous ones. From what textbook are you referring to? And if you really believe my post sounded like a textbook definition of cosmopolitanism, we have lived in a cosmopolitan world since the end of hunter/gatherer times when people began to settle in different locations and began trading with one another. Do you feel the ideologies mentioned are subscribed to by a significant number of persons? While I can neither confirm nor deny that some Blacks may presently experience what they feel to be discrimination, I suspect many persons who are not Black both past and present also experience what they feel to be discrimination. In my opinion government, and our laws should equally to ALL, regardless of race, colour, wealth, etc. In the past when given a form to fill out which asked the question 'race', I always entered 'human'. As it appears to have been confirmed by science that the origin of human life began in Africa, perhaps we should all claim to be Black?
