Separation & Purity of Race/Region/Skin Colour + Identity Politics

[Amit]

Someone give me one good reason why these things should be followed.

[Timm]

everything would be tidy and easy to prejudice

[Knifeboy]

Diversity = Scary

.. Apparently

[Steerpike]

I'm not sure I have that much creativity and imagination.

[Amit]

Diversity = Scary

.. Apparently

It's like saying, if I listen to anything besides one band, I will automatically lose everything I know and love about the original band!

[Skyler]

I can't think of one good reason, or any reason for that matter.

People are stupid.

[Amit]

I wonder if John McLaughlin lost his jazz heritage when he played with Zakir Hussain. And on the same token, did Zakir lose his traditions by playing with John?

[Iskandar]

I'm proud of the accomplishments and history of the human race in general, not just my ancestors.

(Besides, all the Polish ever invented was kielbasa and the liberum veto.)

[Amit]

I'm proud of the accomplishments and history of the human race in general, not just my ancestors.

Indeed! That's the one thing identity politics can't take away from us...In the end, we're all humans.

(Besides, all the Polish ever invented was kielbasa and the liberum veto.)

Don't forget pierogies!

Haha, one of my friends is all Polish. I love her =)

She even gave me a Polish pet name/nickname \m/

[Iskandar]

Indeed! That's the one thing identity politics can't take away from us...In the end, we're all humans.



Don't forget pierogies!

Haha, one of my friends is all Polish. I love her =)

She even gave me a Polish pet name/nickname \m/
Cool. :)

A cursory look at history shows that all races and civilizations have contributed to the greater good of humanity. The Chinese invented paper; the Arabs invented decimal numbers; Russians invented vodka. :p

[-1up!-]

good point, Dropper... Cultural mixity was beneficial to most cultural ensembles. I can't imagine a reason to follow the concepts Eggo named earlier.

[Amit]

Cool. :)

A cursory look at history shows that all races and civilizations have contributed to the greater good of humanity. The Chinese invented paper; the Arabs invented decimal numbers; Russians invented vodka. :p

Actually, Indians invented all that mathematics stuff well before the Arabs. It's just that the Arabs and Persians were far closer to the West, which apparently decides what is written in history books :-)

[Iskandar]

Actually, Indians invented all that mathematics stuff well before the Arabs. It's just that the Arabs and Persians were far closer to the West, which apparently decides what is written in history books :-)
Oh, I knew that. :) The only part of this year's math class I liked was the history segment.

The decimal counting system (0-9) is generally considered to be an Arab invention, though, is it not? Or else it's just the numerals themselves that are.

[Timm]

Actually, Indians invented all that mathematics stuff well before the Arabs. It's just that the Arabs and Persians were far closer to the West, which apparently decides what is written in history books :-)
it doesn't really matter though, after all it were humans amirite :-)

[Amit]

Oh, I knew that. :) The only part of this year's math class I liked was the history segment.

The decimal counting system (0-9) is generally considered to be an Arab invention, though, is it not? Or else it's just the numerals themselves that are.

"Arabic" numerals are actually Sanskrit numerals, heh.

[Iskandar]

"Arabic" numerals are actually Sanskrit numerals, heh.
It's confusing. The numerals used in the Middle East are called "Indic" which leads me to believe they're used in the Indian subcontinent, not the Middle East.

[TojesDolan]

Indo-arabic would be a better term, there's plenty of both systems going on in there.

Anyway, culture shock is only viable when both cultures are willing to mix, and there's no imposition from one over the other, creating a more rich, enhanced knowledge on life things.

Certainly nothing like conquerors from the "old continent" back in the 16th-17th century, but that can be biased thinking.

[Atomic Rain]

Change is bad; things staying the same is good!

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

I wonder if John McLaughlin lost his jazz heritage when he played with Zakir Hussain. And on the same token, did Zakir lose his traditions by playing with John?
no! we couldnt lose extrapolation!

[superpeer]

Because those damn foreigners can't spell separation.

No, really, I can only think of disadvantages.

[23-inch dude]

I know it's off topic, but atomic rain has a cool avatar!

[Dave de Sylvia]

Actually, Indians invented all that mathematics stuff well before the Arabs. It's just that the Arabs and Persians were far closer to the West, which apparently decides what is written in history books :-)
Plus they invaded ****ing everyone

I played racist poker last night.

[Amit]

Racism \m/

[Smokey D]

The idea that there is an essentialist, absolute quality about culture or heritage that can be diluted or removed is patently ridiculous when you consider what culture actually is. It makes even less sense when people try to link it to an ethnicity or skin colour (as Wotan and Route1 implied in other threads).

At its most basic level, culture is merely a set of decisions and ideas undertaken by one group of people that inform upon future decisions and ideas, and is therefore necessarily a dynamic, ever changing thing. At the borders of Asia and Europe, you cannot mark an exact distinction between European and Asian values, because they are based on local thought processes and ideas (which change imperceptibly over distance), not tied back to some esoteric notion of nationhood. It is like trying to find the exact line between 'East Coast' and 'Mid West' America.

[Zoroaster]

At its most basic level, culture is merely a set of decisions and ideas undertaken by one group of people that inform upon future decisions and ideas, and is therefore necessarily a dynamic, ever changing thing. At the borders of Asia and Europe, you cannot mark an exact distinction between European and Asian values, because they are based on local thought processes and ideas (which change imperceptibly over distance), not tied back to some esoteric notion of nationhood. It is like trying to find the exact line between 'East Coast' and 'Mid West' America.

This jumbled mess of an argument reminds me of the ever-stupid postmodernist, Delueze; perhaps even Hegel on a good day. The notion of nationhood is indisputably evident in pretty much everything the State meddles in, from foreign policy to domestic legislation. We don't choose values necessarily for the sake of expediency. Otherwise we'd have a world humming along to rule utilitarianism (an economist's wet dream). No, instead, your so-called "set of decisions and ideas" are perpetuated over generations through overarching institutions such as religion and government, or even a fine mixture of both. They're far from being dynamic, if anything, they're static. Gay marriage anyone?

[Smokey D]

So English culture is the same now as it was in 1215?

[Amit]

Gay marriage anyone?

That seems more like an example for a dynamic culture than a static one :-\

In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.

In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.

In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time.

The change averaged slightly less than 1 percentage point per year.

Or look at the attitudes towards blacks in the "culture" of the South. I think that's changed just a slight bit in just the last 40 years.

Or what about the status of Dalits (Untouchables) in India? I think that's certainly undergone quite an upheaval in the last 50 years.

[Zoroaster]

So English culture is the same now as it was in 1215?

Add democracy to the mix, higher income mobility, more rapid capital creation and more efficient exploitation of capital, some personal liberties, perhaps a partition or two, and yes, you still have the same State with pretty much the same haughty nature that so perfectly exemplify post-colonial countries. France anyone?

[Smokey D]

So pretty much completely change the nature and make up of the state and you've got the same state?

I'm sorry but you can't gloss over the differences between Norman monarchy and liberal democracy in a paragraph.

[Zoroaster]

That seems more like an example for a dynamic culture than a static one :-\

My point being, culture is not as volatile as people would have it [sic: I'm not sure anthropologists constitue people]. You're not going to get a population changing to-and-fro absolutes. People aren't morally vacuous, they're principled by nature, rational even. If, as Smokey so "elegantly" put it, individuals constitute groups, and majority holds, the only dynamicism we would experience would be in so-called "empty canvases," namely younger generations.

[Amit]

I'm sorry but you can't gloss over the differences between Norman monarchy and liberal democracy in a paragraph.

Don't encourage him...He might gloss it over in a couple pages then :-D

[Zoroaster]

So pretty much completely change the nature and make up of the state and you've got the same state?

In the case of the ever-arrogant Brits, I'd say yes. Then again, I'm trying to rile up some proper debate, so I might just be reverting to the old hyperbole for "added effect."

[Amit]

It's rather disappointing that all the people who were so strong in supporting the views outlined in the thread's title have not shown up yet >:[

[PerpetualBurn]

Gay marriage anyone?

This is so unexpected.

I never even knew you cared.

I of course accept your offer and know that we will be happy together.

[Smokey D]

In the case of the ever-arrogant Brits, I'd say yes. Then again, I'm trying to rile up some proper debate, so I might just be reverting to the old hyperbole for "added effect."

Um, everything about England has changed since 1215, least not language, which is the most common indicator of shared nationhood.

And let's not forget the nation-state didn't even exist until 1647

[-1up!-]

Absolutely ridiculous. Culture is static? The thought is so ridiculous it's not worthy of an argument. Those anthropologists you so adequately do not recognize as people know more about that than your conservative mindset will ever do.

[Zoroaster]

Those anthropologists you so adequately do not recognize as people know more about that than your conservative mindset will ever do.

It's really a pity you regard anthropologists as legitimate "social scientists." If anything, with the already excessive amount of "extensive" research into what cultures are made of and likewise other human phenomena, they're relegated into researching social anomalies, like pedophilia. Suffice to say, fourty years of investigation into what makes people "bad" have done nothing to curb the behaviour of said people.

In conclusion, anthropology is useless.

[Smokey D]

You're taking an extremely narrow view of anthropology.

And you're mostly talking about socieology anyway.

[-1up!-]

That's a blatant generalization and it's disgusting. Anthropologists never stop to observe culture precisely because it is dynamic.


Cultural change

Cultures, by predisposition, both embrace and resist change dependence of culture traits. For example, men and women have complementary roles in many cultures. One sex might desire changes that affect the other, as happened in the second half of the 20th century in western cultures.

Cultural change can come about due to the environment, to inventions (and other internal influences), and to contact with other cultures. For example, the end of the last ice age helped lead to the invention of agriculture, which in its turn brought about many cultural innovations.

In diffusion, the form of something moves from one culture to another, but not its meaning. For example, hamburgers, mundane in the United States, seemed exotic when introduced into China. "Stimulus diffusion" refers to an element of one culture leading to an invention in another. Diffusions of innovations theory presents a research-based model for why and when individuals and cultures adopt new ideas, practices, and products.

"Acculturation" has different meanings, but in this context refers to replacement of the traits of one culture with those of another, such as happened to certain Native American tribes and to many indigenous peoples across the globe during the process of colonization.

Related processes on an individual level include assimilation (adoption of a different culture by an individual) and transculturation.

Cultural invention has come to mean any innovation that is new and found to be useful to a group of people and expressed in their behaviour but which does not exist as a physical object.
[edit]

Cultural studies

Cultural studies developed in the late 20th century, in part through the re-introduction of Marxist thought into sociology, and in part through the articulation of sociology and other academic disciplines such as literary criticism. This movement aimed to focus on the analysis of subcultures in capitalist societies. Following the non-anthropological tradition, cultural studies generally focus on the study of consumption goods (such as fashion, art, and literature). Because the 18th- and 19th-century distinction between "high" and "low" culture seems inappropriate to apply to the mass-produced and mass-marketed consumption goods which cultural studies analyses, these scholars refer instead to "popular culture".

Today, some anthropologists have joined the project of cultural studies. Most, however, reject the identification of culture with consumption goods. Furthermore, many now reject the notion of culture as bounded, and consequently reject the notion of subculture. Instead, they see culture as a complex web of shifting patterns that link people in different locales and that link social formations of different scales. According to this view, any group can construct its own cultural identity.

People are not principled by nature. The sets of principles they adopt is directly linked to the process of socialisation, which inserts an individual in a cultural context. Your petty denial of anthropologists' worth only shows you are ready to stoop to any depth to defend your point, because you are denying the very authority in regards to cultural studies. Get some basics of sociology and anthropology before spreading your misinformed views.

[The Violent Warrior]

Someone give me one good reason why these things should be followed.

We'd all become smug and love the smell of our own farts.

[Zoroaster]

People are not principled by nature. The sets of principles they adopt is directly linked to the process of socialisation, which inserts an individual in a cultural context. Your petty denial of anthropologists' worth only shows you are ready to stoop to any depth to defend your point, because you are denying the very authority in regards to cultural studies. Get some basics of sociology and anthropology before spreading your misinformed views.

Forgive me for assuming that mature citizens are principled and rational. I guess if that's the stance the anthropologist/sociologist takes, i.e. that people are moral agents susceptible to adopt anything and everything, it makes perfect sense! Assuming irrationality enables them to publish additional useless publications about anomalies that frankly need less attention than more weightier disciplines.

[Chrysostom]

Racial politics is one of the most ridiculous human inventions. Ever.

[AA-12]

I'm thinking of posting here but i'm not sure :o

[Amit]

do it do it do it

[AA-12]

I don't really have anything to bring to the table.

[Amit]

Why not?

Man, someone give post this link on Stormfront or something. I want to see some action >:[

[pppoe]

Someone needs to bring this thread to Captain Frank Castle's attention. He and his father believe in separating races and "preserving culture."

[AA-12]

Um, I inspired this thread dei, so gg.

[Smokey D]

Forgive me for assuming that mature citizens are principled and rational. I guess if that's the stance the anthropologist/sociologist takes, i.e. that people are moral agents susceptible to adopt anything and everything, it makes perfect sense! Assuming irrationality enables them to publish additional useless publications about anomalies that frankly need less attention than more weightier disciplines.

States aren't natural, so nor are citizens.

[owlandtree]

In conclusion, anthropology is useless.
Anthropology is a very versatile field. Businesses with foreign interests hire Anthro's to study the cultural semantics of different societies. Advertising and Marketing hire them to study possible foriegn target markets. World Governments seek their cultural expertise as well. Anthropology is clearly not useless.