Well Bob:
It has been the requisite two days so let me just opine that I think it is very clear that you felt very strongly about what you were saying in that post.
So how do we all “feel” about European multiculti ism?
And they are Kurdish. Remember what I said earlier about this not being Turks but Kurds and North Africans but not Tunisians.
Well, I think that European multiculturalism has a long ways to go. The EU is based on economic integration papered over with a broader European nationalism. There’s a lot of nations there, but it nonetheless feels a few loads shy of true multiculturalism.
Looking at something other than really poor example, I’m feel proud of the way multiculturalism is a real and positive presence back home in Vancouver. Yeah, there are problems, but those problems attract attention, are seen to be problems, and quickly addressed. Various peoples mix easily without a second thought as to race and the fusion create some fabulous results. Government run programs aimed at various communities have some effect, but far more of the success is due to the work done in the schools over the past 20/ 25 years. People simply grow up feeling comfortable with one another, and knowing that their success is (family economic factors aside) in their own hands. No resentment, no entrenched hostilities, no ingrained sense of “otherness” to target.
Anyways, you’ve brought this up a few times. Why the hostility towards the policy, fred?
really?
Having a lot of cultures is not multiculturalism. Having a lot of cultures as the basis for your nation’s social, political and economic underpinnings is.
Yes, if everyone is equal before a constitution that is Western in origin and a Western sense of justice and fair play are in effect. This is not working because of traditional Chinese or Hindi values. It is because of traditional Western values.
Well then I question your understanding of multiculturalism, its origins and what it intends to do. Ever heard of Althusser? Better read him and understand how while Marxism lost economically and politically, it is with us socially. Althusser and his Marxists targeted the schools as the best place to change the mindset to bring about the revolution and that is what multiculturalims comes from.
Oh I don’t know. I guess for the same reason that I am against any policy that results in massive failure and pain. That is why I was a fervent anti-communists, anti-fascist, anti-Islamofascist and anti-multiculturalist. Read Althusser and get back to me. You have no idea how successful the fifth column plank of the Marxist movement was. They lost politically and economically but we are not out of the woods yet culturally. READ about it.
[quote=“fred smith”]Having a lot of cultures is not multiculturalism. Having a lot of cultures as the basis for your nation’s social, political and economic underpinnings is.[/quote] Living with a lot of cultures is how those traditions and insights are woven into the nation’s fabric.
Yes, if everyone is equal before a constitution that is Western in origin and a Western sense of justice and fair play are in effect. This is not working because of traditional Chinese or Hindi values. It is because of traditional Western values.[/quote]
Perhaps. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of non-Western (are we including Islamic civs in the West, or lumping them in with North Africa and the Orient?) societies getting it right, if only for a time. For a long time running, Islam was more tolerant than Christianity, and Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Sihkism and Christianity–and numerous linguistic and ethnic groups–managed to get along swimmingly–for a time, here and there–in India’s past. No culture has a copyright on the ideas and values that promote tolerance, and more, acceptance; they seem to appear and disappear. I just wish I had more faith in the probability of their remaining where they’ve taken root than I do.
Ok. What do you question about that understanding? It’s a fair question: after all, I keep getting the feeling that you’ve got a few specific bugbears in mind when it comes to multiculturalism, and I don’t have any idea what they are. (Sorry, the broad statements don’t help.) I’ve heard a lot of Althusser but read only pieces here and there. The continuing influence of Marx (I’ll say Marx, rather than Marxism, given that it’s the methods which endure, not the conclusions or dogma) socially, and particularly in a few fields of study, I’ll grant you. But I’ll add Althusser to my Amazon.com wish list. Care to recommend a specific title or three?
In the meantime, recently you stated (something along the lines of) “that it was Judeo-Christian values that made us strong.” Care to elaborate? Just wondering, because while a stirring sentiment, it doesn’t slip into my understanding of the course of things so well. What values and when? I mean, many of those values have been around for a long time… long before “we” (who) were “strong” (meaning)? Well, some of those values were around for a long time: theology’s as much a reflection of the times as is fashion. Curious.
Yes, but they are woven into a unified whole: being American. That occurred for the first several 100 years; it is not occuring now. We did not become more Italian, more Polish, more Russian; they became more American. They were accorded democracy, human rights and the chance to advance because of AMERICAN values. This is why they left Sicily, Poland, etc in the first place not to have more of the same.
So which societies are you referring to and did they have individual rights, democracy and rule of law? Hmmm?
Challenge. Prove that. Everyone says that. I don’t believe it.
I’m in India now. So what exactly are you referring to here? Lots of recent examples of serious riots involving the deaths of thousands. Care to rephrase?
True no nation has a “copyright” but the fact is that Western liberal (old sense of word) societies have been the ones that have promoted values of individual rights, democracy and rule of law. That is why when nations in East Asia adopted them, they were called “Western” societies. That is where our strength lies. We can understand all other cultures but not at the expense of defining and instilling any newcomers with the same values. Surely you see that. Women are not going to get individual rights even in Europe from their Muslim communities.
Althusser went beyond Marx realizing that it was not enough to control the politics and economics. You need to control the culture. The No. 1 target? schools. Look to the schools in America and Western Europe and examine what they are teaching, examine who the proponents of such “theories” have been and then get back to me. This is a totally intended consequence of Marxists in the West and their efforts to reshape the culture to achieve political and economic objectives. The political and economic system (Soviets) has collapsed but this lives on with a life of its own and it is dangerous.
We have a constitution right? Which other cultures had cultures before these were developed in the West. Which other cultures accorded the individual including women with the right to vote? Which other cultures enshrined freedom of religion? Which others cultures ended slavery because it was against these rights? Which other cultures have set up democracies and rule of law? Back to you. If that is still not understandable to you then I apologize for not continuing this conversation. You either get it or you don’t. Do read Althusser though. Look at our society. See what is going on in our schools and ask yourself what kind of society you want. That simple. Ignorance is no excuse for not acting or learning to understand how better to deal with the needs of our society.
See fred, that was a great post, until your closing. Why all this?
I will get back to you, but at the moment I’m at work, so it’ll have to wait a few hours. Enjoy India.
Sorry fred, it’s actually taken me the better part of a week to get back to this… got a lot of stuff on my plate at the moment, you understand.
You were looking for some historical examples to back up these contentions of mine: [quote=“fred smith”][quote=“Jaboney”]Perhaps. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of non-Western (are we including Islamic civs in the West, or lumping them in with North Africa and the Orient?) societies getting it right, if only for a time. [/quote]
So which societies are you referring to and did they have individual rights, democracy and rule of law? Hmmm?
Challenge. Prove that. Everyone says that. I don’t believe it.[/quote]
The second point is easily made. This is a nice, isolated example, so I keep returning to it. I’ve posted the example previously, so apologies to those who’ve read it. (I’ll keep it short.)
July 15, 1099, the knights of the first crusade took Jerusalem and set to work on the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. In places, they rode in blood that rose as high as their horses’ knees. Jews were burned alive in their temples, at (what would later be named) the al’Aqsa Mosque alone 70,000 Muslims were slaughtered.
1187: Saladin retook Jerusalem, granting Christians the right to depart in peace with their property for a period of forty days, and the right thereafter of pilgrimage to holy sites that remained under Christian control, which included the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to remain in Christian hands.
The Crusaders, in contrast, apparently used mosques to stable their horses.
Sliding into the first point:
The little I know of Ottoman law–derivative of my own small literary research project and what’s been related to me by those more knowledgeable–suggests that it was based on local jurisprudence subsumed under an overarching “federal” system. (I’m calling it “federal” since so long as the local system did not conflict with the state system, it seems to have been left alone.) Additionally, there were three court systems, one each for Muslims, non-Muslims (appointed Jews and Christians ruled over their religious areas), and trade. Apparently, it wasn’t unusual for Christian or Jewish women to turn to the Islamic courts rather than the courts of their own communities as they received more just rulings. (The relative status of women in society, like all things, changes. Recently, Muslim women in Canada were instrumental in ensuring that Sharia Law could not be applied in Canada because the standards of protection afforded are now significantly lower.)
I’m in India now. So what exactly are you referring to here? Lots of recent examples of serious riots involving the deaths of thousands. Care to rephrase?[/quote]
No need to rephrase. While you’re there (if you’re still there), check out the history of Akbar the Great (1556 to 1605). A Muslim, Mughal ruler, he was a tolerant ruler and who went so far as to start a new religion to attempt to blend Islam with Hinduism, Christianity, Jainism, and other faiths. (kind of a “Book of Common Prayer” endeavor.) His grandson, Shah Jahan, built the Taj Mahal. Unfortunately, Jahan’s sons went to war over the throne and tolerance was a casualty of war. Again my point, the better periods come and go. Currently Hindu nationalists don’t have much patience, or derive much pleasure from the Mughals’ achievements.
For something more modern, look into the sometimes great divide between Rabindranath Tagore (first non-Westerner to win the Nobel Prize in Literature) and Gandhi (inspiration to who knows how many Nobel Peace Prize winners), particularly with regards to the dangers and virtues of nationalism, and their competing visions of India’s future. When you understand the gulf between them, Tagore’s bestowing the title “Mahatma” on Gandhi becomes truly remarkable, and another instance of a culture of mutual respect and tolerance all the more remarkable for the culture of violence, segregation and hatred that existed right alongside of it.
No time to go on, but that’s enough.
My point isn’t that the West doesn’t currently have a lot to offer, only that I highly doubt that what’s currently on offer is somehow intrinsic to, or entirely determined by elements of Western culture. Rather, I suggest that the sort of excellence, kindness, and respect that we’re after are results of fruitful combinations of various cultural elements, and that these can (and do) very easily and often go wrong… at least as often as they go right.
Those are isolated examples. If I wanted to find “enlightened” Christian rulers of the same time, I could find them in abundance. Ask the Indians or the Persians or others what it was like when the Muslims first arrived. How’s about that? The truth of the matter is that only one culture delivered a concept of human rights, democracy, rule of law and equality before the law and that is the Western Judaeo-Christian tradition. That is not to say that others from other cultures cannot enjoy these benefits BUT it is to say that these benefits will NOT be accrued by “respecting” other cultural traditions and making them a part of the mix. That will lead to Balkanization and it does not equate to equality before the law. Ask Muslim women what they think of the protections they get from Multiculturalism.
These are no more isolated examples than are recent advances in the field of human rights. The Ottoman example is systematic; Saladin a direct comparison of cultural responses to invasion and conquest; the Mughals ruled for how many years in India? How many years since the end of segregation in the States, 40? and we’re back to incarceration without trial. 60 years since the defeat of fascism, less than 2 decades since the end of communism. Fewer than 30 years of full voting rights for women (Quebec and elsewhere), or for non-property owners in local elections. Not a long run of glowing success to beat your chest over, there fred.
Q. for you: what were the cultural/ theological differences between Bartolome de las Casas and Juan Gines de Sepulveda (and within our Western traditions) that led to their advocacy of radically different approaches to the treatment of South American natives? Why’d the nasty bastard’s approach win the day?
Despite the erudition, your take on multiculturalism enjoys the subtlety and nuance of a “Tom Yesterday” comic.
As for the protections Muslim women and others enjoy from Multiculturalism, tell you what, I’ll ask them when we break bread over the holidays… one of the joys of a multicultural family: I don’t have to go far to see what things look like “on the other side.”
I think that politics is NOTHING but based on emotion/feelings. A bunch of people trying to figure out how to gain power to make up for some emotional wound in the past.
To be an effective leader IMO would require that you are emotionally detached from any situation so that you would be able to see the aspects of it clearly. In other words, your shit would have to be together so that you can actually lead people not your ego.
my 34.96nt
All right Jaboney, I am going to pull out the old prove it button again. Prove that the Ottoman empire or the Mughals were as enlightened as we are today or even that things were that great relative to anyone else during their reigns. 1970s historical revisionism ain’t going to cut it with me and I am a fan of the Mughals. A big fan. But that does not close my eyes to the fact that both the Ottomans and Mughals were pre-Enlightenment despotic regimes in the full sense of the word.
Also, what is it with Canadians and their inability to analyze multiculturalism? Is it the French thing in Quebec? Did I say you do not know nice Muslim people who are well adjusted? No. What I said is that if TRADITIONAL Muslim rule were the norm for Muslim women in Canada then what would the result be if all cultures are to be treated equal? Hmmm? You are confusing enjoy attributes of another culture or being with people from that culture with actually have to live under a regime governed completely by the rules and norms of that culture. So stop being so whiny and face up to what I am talking about.
And I will hold you to finding out just how a prisoner or woman or poor person benefited from Akbar’s rule. Ditto for the Ottomans. And yes, our culture was capable of great barbarity EVEN AFTER the Enlightenment but that is not the point. The point is that the system of rules and laws and justice that we have developed is still by far the BEST so I would wonder why we would need to adopt multiculturalism as an education or social or political policy and even less so for a legal or constitutional one when we have benefited as have so many other immigrants from that system and the values that it is based on.
Do not pretend this is about, I love traveling to other countries, enjoy trying new foods and like to celebrate foreign holidays. This is about the system of governance that you want to live in so stop fussing around like a horrified virginal British spinster on her first trip to the Third World with naked Brown people. Look this matter in the face and ask yourself which culture you would be willing to trade your own away for? It is that simple.
Namahottie:
If politics is all about emotion, how can you call for people to be less emotional since by the very structure of your argument that is all that they seem to be capable of? AND why are you now so dismissive of emotionalism? It seemed to me that in previous conversations, my lack thereof was a source of criticism? haha Glad to see you back.
OK I read the Canadian Multicultralism act and STILL I can’t for the life of me figure out what multiculturalism means exactly. It sounds as though we are bound by the same laws (a good thing) but a lot of federal tax dollars will be spent “increasing our awareness” on a variety of issues. It further sounds as if the act was written by people who don’t speak another language other than English or French (a theory has been put forward that they are actually the same language delivered with different attitudes) but who nevertheless smoke a lot of pot and, like, feel the groove of the east dude, you know, buddha and all that and so have no problem with half the street signs in Vancouver and Toronto being written in a sort of dememted pictograph…
[quote=“fred smith”]
Challenge. Prove that. Everyone says that. I don’t believe it.[/quote]
[quote]Arab Caliphates, Christian Crusaders, and early Ottoman rule (638-1800s)
. . . . . the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab allowed the Jews entry into the city and full freedom to live and worship after 400 hundred years. Jews were allowed to move back into their homes. [Romans had kicked Jews out]
Under the early centuries of Muslim rule, especially during the Umayyad (650-750) and Abbasid (750-969) dynasties, the city prospered; the geographers Ibn Hawqal and al-Istakhri (10th century) describe it as “the most fertile province of Palestine”, while its native son the geographer al-Muqaddasi (born 946) devoted many pages to its praises in his most famous work, The Best Divisions in the Knowledge of the Climes.
The early Arab period was also one of religious tolerance. However, in the early 11th century, the Egyptian Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of all churches and synagogues in Jerusalem, a policy reversed by his successors. Reports of this were one cause of the First Crusade, which marched off from Europe to the area, and, on July 15, 1099, Christian soldiers took Jerusalem after a difficult one month siege. They then proceeded to slaughter most of the city’s Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Raymond d’Aguiliers, chaplain to Raymond de Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, wrote:
Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious ceremonies were ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle-reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood. (Edward Peters, The First Crusade: The chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials, p. 214)
Jerusalem became the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a feudal state, of which the King of Jerusalem was the chief. The Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted until 1291; however, Jerusalem itself was recaptured by Saladin in 1187, who permitted worship of all religions (see Siege of Jerusalem (1187).
. . . .
In 1243 Jerusalem came again into the power of the Christians, and the walls were repaired. The Kharezmian Tatars took the city in 1244; and they in turn were driven out by the Egyptians in 1247. In 1260 the Tatars under Hulaku Khan overran the whole land, and the Jews that were in Jerusalem had to flee to the neighboring villages.
In the middle of the 13th century, Jerusalem was captured by the Egyptian Mameluks. In 1517, it was taken over by the Ottoman Empire and enjoyed a period of renewal and peace under Suleiman the Magnificent - including the rebuilding of magnificent walls of what is now known as the Old City (however, some of the wall foundations are remains of genuine antique walls). The rule of Suleiman and the following Ottoman Sultans brought an age of “religious peace”; Jew, Christian and Muslim enjoyed the freedom of religion the Ottomans granted them and it was possible to find a synagogue, a church and a mosque in the same street.The city remained open to all religions, although the empire’s faulty management after Suleiman meant slow economical stagnation.
In 1482, the visiting Dominican priest Felix Fabri described Jerusalem as a dwelling place of diverse nations of the world, and is, as it were, a collection of all manner of abominations. As abominations he listed Saracens, Greeks, Syrians, Jacobites, Abyssianians, Nestorians, Armenians, Gregorians, Maronites, Turcomans, Bedouins, Assassins, a sect possibly Druze, Mamelukes, and the most accursed of all, Jews. Only the Latin Christians long with all their hearts for Christian princes to come and subject all the country to the authority of the Church of Rome. (A. Stewart, Palestine Pilgrims Text Society, Vol 9-10, p. 384-391)[/quote]
hmmmm. . . . 650AD to 1482AD, I’d say that’s a pretty good spread, wouldn’t you?
Show me the way, fred. Prove to me precisely how enlightened we are.
Then show me where I said that they were as enlightened then as we are now. Were you in the habit of reading carefully you’d well know that my point was relative and contemporary, not absolute and transhistorical; no Hegelian chronological and cultural snobbery here, if you please. Other cultures have danced a merry moral dance 'round ass-backward Westerners in the past, and will do so again in the future. It’s a very simple rule of history.
You contend that “both the Ottomans and Mughals were pre-Enlightenment despotic regimes in the full sense of the word.” Ok, yeah, they were despots. Agreed. Point? Pre-Enlightment is a temporal term, and an accurate one. Were they unenlightened is another question. Would I have rather lived as an alien under Shah Jahan than as an alien–or even as a native–Catholic under (somewhat earlier) Tudor rule, or as a Protestant under Stuart? hmmm… let me think about that… it could be nasty either way. I think I’d prefer to visit England just for the period’s theatre scene, but live in India. But I’ll keep thinking on it.
While I’m thinking about that, here’s one for you to ponder: what is it about your posts and needless strings of epithets? Denigrating others’ views as “1970s historical revisionism”, “confused”, “whiny” or any thing else you care to dredge up doesn’t do much except tire them of your correspondence. Nor your unwillingness to read another’s argument carefull (to say nothing of “in the best light”). How about a better version of turnabout?
[quote=“fred smith”] Did I say you do not know nice Muslim people who are well adjusted? No. What I said is that if TRADITIONAL Muslim rule were the norm for Muslim women in Canada then what would the result be if all cultures are to be treated equal? Hmmm?[/quote] Back at ya, word for word, save two:
Well? I suppose we’ll have to decide on which variety of Christian rule is to be applied (though you make no such concession to the varieties of traditional Muslim rule). You do realize, I’m sure, that while more than a few TRADITIONAL Christian cultural norms (to say nothing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) would strike most contemporary Christians as decidedly unChristian, there would be a few fruitloops out there who would embrace such a return to “our traditional values,” which include “imperial love,” seed-bed of such cultural high points as the Inquisition.
Back to the show…
[quote=“fred smith”]You are confusing enjoy attributes of another culture or being with people from that culture with actually have to live under a regime governed completely by the rules and norms of that culture.[/quote] No. I’m acknowledging that the sort of cultural and legalistic rigidity that you’re at once condemning elsewhere (while apparently promoting at home) creates an environment that is artificial, fragile and toxic. I’m acknowledging that cultural traditions feed off of and inform one another. This is a good deal more than enjoying the attributes of other cultures or peoples.
I’m asserting that society and law ought to–as they do–inform and shape one another. A couple of law profs made the point better than I could, so here’s others’ take on it:
Cover’s point is a fine one. You could take the fundamentalist position, I suppose, and argue that simply because the populace has become corrupt is no reason for the rules to be altered one whit. But that seems decidedly unenlightened. Neither the law nor society holds the reins in this relationship: it’s a continual cultural interaction, and given the diverse character of North American societies there are two options: informative interaction and guidance, or distance, denial and prescription. The law can reflect and speak to our concerns, and there by guide us, or take a hardline, set demands and become estranged from us. Taken as a measure of a civilization, which is healthier?
The road to my solution becomes more clear if we back up a bit:
Yes, but they are woven into a unified whole: being American. That occurred for the first several 100 years; it is not occuring now. We did not become more Italian, more Polish, more Russian; they became more American. [/quote]
First up, where, when and how did “American-ness” arise? Seriously. A few people from England arrived in a land that soon became much less populated by those who’d been there for a long, long while. A few Spanish folks, French, Dutch, Irish, Italians, ect., ect., ect… and they were all woven into a unified whole: being American. So, where’d that unified whole come from, if not from the patchwork of pieces? What makes you think it isn’t happening now, the fact that a few folks cling to what’s familiar? Media hype over the ‘culture wars’? Do you believe in a static notion of what being “American” means?
Secondly, what makes you think that the traditions of new immigrants are a greater threat than stagnation or, more generously and accurately, single-source growth. Check out Robert Wright’s interesting book, “Non-zero”, in which he proposes setting aside our focus on historical actors in order to keep our eyes on the “memes”, on the ideas. (Those tricky ideas, they have a way of getting around and of getting away from what we think they ought to be.) It’s a fruitful approach: follow the bouncin ideas.
[quote=“fred smith”]The point is that the system of rules and laws and justice that we have developed is still by far the BEST so I would wonder why we would need to adopt multiculturalism as an education or social or political policy and even less so for a legal or constitutional one when we have benefited as have so many other immigrants from that system and the values that it is based on.[/quote] Because while the more liberal Western models are the best yet developed, they, we, and the environment continue to develop and excessive specialization breeds extinction. Is single-minded devotion to a narrow set of specific ideals a worry here? In the funny papers, it sometimes seems that hardcore originalists would like it to freeze that system in its tracks, but I very much doubt that American jurisprudence and political culture have really stopped developing. These things are still evolving, but what reason do we have to confine our search for our next, best thing to the realm of what’s old and familiar. Why not look further afield? Traditions can be fine, intellectual incest, not so much.
Take a look at Western tradition and tell me, please, what were the inspirations? We could draw a map back to Aristotle’s ekos to deal with property and civic rights. That particular intellectual roadmap would contain most of the major signposts and it appears to be fully Western. But we would have to detour through the Middle East during its heyday, when Islamic scholars were still studying, adapting and perserving the classical tradition that Europe forgot and needed to kick off the Renaissance. (You don’t think that European scholars got their hands on the origin texts only, and not a decent amount of Islamic interpretation as at the same time, do you?)
Come on, fred, why not simply acknowledge that Western-ness didn’t emerge, whole, complete, and ready for war like Athena from the mind of Zeus. Why not acknowledge that other peoples, in other times and places, have done pretty well; often better than our predeceasors/ their contemporaries. Then ask yourself why who we are tomorrow shouldn’t include, in the core, elements of those who are almost completely foreign to us today. Chinese-style ancestor veneration seems silly to me, but it’s Japanese variant, “properly applied” (IMHO) to one’s elderly relations, gets a few things right. Importing the core concepts at play here would seem (paradoxically) to be both a good idea and a return to a traditional, Western family ethos. Given the rapid greying of the population, it would not be surprising to see those recently imported/remembered values soon expressed and enshrined in law. Our legal superstructure (ah! creeping marxist analysis) would be changed, for the better, thanks to an effect of multiculturalism. gasp the horror. No, no, it’s ok. We could rapidly forget or cover-up the origins of our change of heart.
It’s not that simple. Not unless you really are a fundamentalist. Let’s go Nietzschean for a moment and have not only the courage of our convictions, but the courage for an assault on our convictions. Look your culture in the face and ask yourself whether or not you’re confident that it has all the possible tools and solutions at hand to deal with the challenges that it’s going to face in 2040. How about 2075, which each of us might very well live to see. It’s not about which culture you or I would be willing to trade away our own for. Cultures are not baseball or hockey cards. If anything, they’re incomplete sets of sticky Lego blocks: we can’t completely disassemble them, none of us have all of the pieces, and we habitually (in the Aristotelian sense) assemble their constituent parts in familiar ways. We can adapt them to our needs, but they’re not infinitely adaptable, and it might just be a good idea to trade pieces or strategies once in a while. Multiculturalism is, quite simply, a fine way to get serious about getting our hands on a few new pieces and new buiding strategies. It takes some experimentation: a few pieces will be judiciously discarded, a few awkward configurations will be tested and rejected, but few–possibly crucial–elements will be incorporated to our benefit.
The point is that the system of rules and laws and justice that we have is the result of developments elsewhere as well as here. The point is that if the system is the best, it is so because it’s an “open source” project, or a “wiki” project. It’s open and adaptable. We try things out, keep what we want, and too often promptly forget where it came from or that things were ever any other way. But we only do that when open to, or forced to challenging our beliefs.
Not the most comfortable of political undertakings…
not something we often feel* like doing.
*Sometimes feelings get in the way of facts; isn’t that what you said on page one of this thread, fred?
I hereby 100 percent acknowledge my complete and utter defeat in this discussion and my complete and utter unwillingness to pursue it.
Fred, that has got to be the classiest way in which anyone has ever told me to go get stuffed. Very gracious of you.
I sincerely hope that we find a way to have a serious discussion with driving one another mad. Perhaps over brews some happy hour. Until then, I’ll remember where the piece are on the board: there are yet some good moves to be made.