This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Victor, are you a critic of multiculturalism?
Mostly, I wanted to look at both sides of this issue. On the other hand, multiculturalism I think can be used to support an unreasonable form of relativism, and you also have to deal with the un-multiculturalness of many of the "multi" cultures, such as radical Islam.
I observed some of the related issues in the past in the lives of Bhutanese refugees coming to the United States. There was initial self-segregation due to language issues. More confusing, was the attempt to transition the politics of a refugee camp through the formation of a Bhutanese community association. Working against the tendency to segregation were tendencies to assimilate. Children were quicker to learn the language than their parents and youth were quicker to advance in employment opportunities through excelling in education (especially the sciences). It makes me think that taking a stand for or against multiculturalism as an ideal is untenable in the face of the realities that individuals face.
As the countries of the world become increasingly multicultural, both in terms of ideology and population, will the nation-state simply die a slow death?If yes, what comes after? if no, what will the common "culture" of a nation actually look like?
Chris, I say economic interdependence will be the driver among regional nation states going forward. Many of the various regional free trade agreements already in place, such as the European Union, NAFTA, and the various multi-lateral arrangements including NATO, are already underpinning social, economic, and community cohesion in one form or another. Still a formative process to be sure but most are predicated on the basis of serving not only the economic best interests but also the underlying social stability that enhances improved economic performance of all its members. There will be ructions into the future as other and perhaps more disparate societies seek to enter into these economic partnerships. These include some of the Muslim countries that generally seem to have some misfit into the wider international communities that have already formed interrelated partnerships such as Europe. However, these partnerships will have, if not already having, a mitigating effect on many of those elements of cultural diversity which by their nature promulgate somewhat perverse sectional, sectarian, isolating, estranging, or [group] tribal interests at the expense of the more 'liberal', charitable or complementary aspects of their culture.This is the way humanity must move forward in an ever smaller world via telecommunications and mass transportation.
hmm,That perspective has something of a Marxist flavor.Man= homo economicus?
It may well do from your definitional perspective. But economic fundamentals are intrinsic drivers of free markets and free enterprise as well. And if you imagine the US economy and its relationship with Europe together with reflecting NAFTA as an economic model with a Marxist flavour, knock yourself out.
Fundamentalist Atheist kills Muslims.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/11/vehement-atheist-charged-with-executing-3-muslims-students/Fascinating!!!!!!
Post a Comment