Cultural appropriation

[Saint of Sinners]

What are your thoughts on it?

Personally, I feel that it is a flawed concept. Saying that "xxx race can't do xxx or wear xxx because they are xxx" is the very concept of racism. After all, culture is a divisive factor in society, and to become truly multicultural and egalitarian, one should strive to appreciate other cultures as much as possible, so as to create a common identity, which will greatly minimize a lot of discrimination people face today. Limiting other races exposure to your culture only serves to deepen the divide between races. If our goal is to erase racial barriers, isn't the merging and shared pride in all cultures of humanity a logical step? Celebrate what we achieve as a species, not as a race.

Of course i'm not talking about perpetuating negative stereotypes. Like stereotypical racial Halloween costumes. Those are obviously negative and mocking and should not be allowed. However, in my opinion, wearing costumes from other cultures should be allowed if it's an authentic costume or quality reproduction (not on Halloween, I mean wearing them in day to day life).

I must also add that I'm not saying people should be allowed to wear other culture's clothes or use their symbols just because it looks cool. It's your responsibility to learn about what the costume/symbol means, its history and proper usage, and any rites associated with it. I'm promoting the understanding and appreciation of other cultures. If you want to wear it because it looks cool, that's not ok. But if you want to wear it because you're interested in learning more about the history and practices of the race in question, that should be allowed and maybe even encouraged. Why would you turn someone away from learning about your culture because of their race?

In my opinion, the people who shun discrimination and promote racial equality, but use race as a factor in deciding who can enjoy their culture are hypocrites. The best way to "Defend your culture" is to reach out to as many people as possible and teach them about it, so they understand what you do and why you do it, not ban everyone not of your race from doing anything that came from your culture. After all, being 'colorblind' is a two way street.

[Left Now]

Just this:The world is alive with Cultures,not Culture.

[Typhlosion]

First race can't do sterotypes or wear costumes because they are not being accurate to second race?

Did I get it right?

[Vlerchan]

I tend to be fine with 'cultural appropriation' when the appropriator demonstrates a genuine national-conciousness, understanding the traditions unique semiotic value, historical basis, etc., because otherwise such appropriation only contributes to the desacralisation of the tradition, and the flattening out of such cultural expression to the realm of mass culture, where it loses all its value.

But that's because I was born into a cultural-nationalist tradition that has an internationalist outlook about it. Irish is something you are, not something you are born to. I can understand when groups don't share the same internationalist outlook and their traditions happen to be, as such, intimately entwined with their statues within their own unique historical heritage as a people. It's impossible to form a genuine impersonation of a tradition like this, when that tradition makes an explicit rejection of your participation.

When that happens, people need to just get over themselves.

[Syzygy]

I tend to be fine with 'cultural appropriation' when the appropriator demonstrates a genuine national-conciousness, understanding the traditions unique semiotic value, historical basis, etc., because otherwise such appropriation only contributes to the desacralisation of the tradition, and the flattening out of such cultural expression to the realm of mass culture, where it loses all its value.

But that's because I was born into a cultural-nationalist tradition that has an internationalist outlook about it. Irish is something you are, not something you are born to. I can understand when groups don't share the same internationalist outlook and their traditions happen to be, as such, intimately entwined with their statues within their own unique historical heritage as a people. It's impossible to form a genuine impersonation of a tradition like this, when that tradition makes an explicit rejection of your participation.

When that happens, people need to just get over themselves.

As an Irish person what do you think of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot?

[Atom]

What are your thoughts on it?
I see what you are trying to say, but I find this whole post to be very illogical and self-contradictory.

Of course i'm not talking about perpetuating negative stereotypes. Like stereotypical racial Halloween costumes. Those are obviously negative and mocking and should not be allowed.
But this is someone elses culture. We don't celebrate halloween where I live, but, as far as I know, no one dresses to mock someone or their culture. If you see this as offensive, then I think you are the one who's wrong here.
-->
Saying that "xxx race can't do xxx or wear xxx because they are xxx"...
-->
...and to become truly multicultural and egalitarian, one should strive to appreciate other cultures as much as possible
-->
If our goal is to erase racial barriers, isn't the merging and shared pride in all cultures of humanity a logical step?
^This whole thing is very self-contradictory, imo. You say that we should accept other cultures in our lives but at the same time that we are not allowed to do so?

Celebrate what we achieve as a species, not as a race.
This I agree with you on.


I must also add that I'm not saying people should be allowed to wear other culture's clothes or use their symbols just because it looks cool. It's your responsibility to learn about what the costume/symbol means, its history and proper usage, and any rites associated with it.
-->
Limiting other races exposure to your culture only serves to deepen the divide between races.
-->
The best way to "Defend your culture" is to reach out to as many people as possible and teach them about it, so they understand what you do and why you do it, not ban everyone not of your race from doing anything that came from your culture. After all, being 'colorblind' is a two way street.

The order is messed up and holds no meaning. I just quoted stuff that contradicts itself.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't expect to be taken seriously (your culture in our case) if you outright Demand it. Like, ever. If you want to merge cultures then you shouldn't allow this kind of exposure and ban the other.
I hope this makes sense.

[Vlerchan]

As an Irish person what do you think of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot?
I don't have a problem with it.

In narrow, little New England, [Fighting Irish] began as a slur -- a term of opprobrium. But we took it up and made of it a badge of honor -- a symbol of fidelity and courage to everyone who suffers from discrimination; to everyone who has an uphill fight for the elemental decencies, and the basic Christian principles woven into the texture of our nation. Preserving this tradition, and this meaning of Irish at Notre Dame does honor to everyone of us.

http://www3.nd.edu/~wcawley/corson/whyfightingirish.htm

I also don't have an issue with the Fighting Irish label itself.

[Saint of Sinners]

I see what you are trying to say, but I find this whole post to be very illogical and self-contradictory.


But this is someone elses culture. We don't celebrate halloween where I live, but, as far as I know, no one dresses to mock someone or their culture. If you see this as offensive, then I think you are the one who's wrong here.
-->

-->

-->

^This whole thing is very self-contradictory, imo. You say that we should accept other cultures in our lives but at the same time that we are not allowed to do so?


This I agree with you on.



-->

-->


The order is messed up and holds no meaning. I just quoted stuff that contradicts itself.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't expect to be taken seriously (your culture in our case) if you outright Demand it. Like, ever. If you want to merge cultures then you shouldn't allow this kind of exposure and ban the other.
I hope this makes sense.

I assume your issue is with the Halloween costume point.

Well to be honest I don't really give a damn about the costumes, I'm only addressing the issue to provide a complete picture.

When I say mocking costumes I don't mean a black girl wearing a Kimono or a Asian guy wearing a kilt. I mean parody costumes like 'Pocahottie' or 'kung fool'.

In addition Halloween isn't a good time to wear racial costumes :/. Like wear it any other time, sure, but on a day where you're supposed to wear fantasy/scary costumes they don't really fit. Because it would be pretty much going around saying like "Hey, for Halloween I'm gonna dress up as one of them Indians! It's gonna be super cool."

[fairmaiden]

I'm black, and when I see girls of another race with cornrows or braids, it doesn't bother me one bit. I think it's nice that one race is appreciating/embracing the way another race keeps their hair maintained, so I have no issues with it (as long as the person who has the braids isn't an ignoramus).

If I see a non-south east asian person wear a bindi, I cannot judge. I'm not Indian/South-East Asian, therefore I can't assess whether the person wearing the bindi actually appreciates it's cultural value or not.

What bothers me is when someone criticises a feature/hairstyle that certain races have, and then a few months later that same person goes and tries to replicate that feature/hairstyle. I know many people irl who do that, and it bugs me alot. It is hypocritical and ignorant for that person to do such a thing. But I am judging that one person; not an entire race. Therefore, I don't have problems with people of different races putting their hair in braids or having ''big lips'' (which isn't even a trait exclusive to black people).

I can't think of other examples of ''cultural appropriation'' at the moment so sorry if I'm only sticking to a few main points.

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone but that's how I feel.

[Saint of Sinners]

I tend to be fine with 'cultural appropriation' when the appropriator demonstrates a genuine national-conciousness, understanding the traditions unique semiotic value, historical basis, etc., because otherwise such appropriation only contributes to the desacralisation of the tradition, and the flattening out of such cultural expression to the realm of mass culture, where it loses all its value.

But that's because I was born into a cultural-nationalist tradition that has an internationalist outlook about it. Irish is something you are, not something you are born to. I can understand when groups don't share the same internationalist outlook and their traditions happen to be, as such, intimately entwined with their statues within their own unique historical heritage as a people. It's impossible to form a genuine impersonation of a tradition like this, when that tradition makes an explicit rejection of your participation.

When that happens, people need to just get over themselves.

I understand haha. I'm raised in a multicultural society made up largely of immigrants, and since young we're encouraged to personally experience, learn about and appreciate each other's cultures. Hell we're encouraged to wear each other's traditional costumes on Racial Harmony Day(yes it's a thing XD). As like I said we're a country of immigrants, this was probably to encourage a shared cultural identity and preserve good racial relations, but it also left a significant impact on my outlook on race and culture.


Just this:The world is alive with Cultures,not Culture.

That's my point. Culture is a divisive element in society. As long as we think of human culture as cultures, the various peoples of humanity can never be truly united.

I'm black, and when I see girls of another race with cornrows or braids, it doesn't bother me one bit. I think it's nice that one race is appreciating/embracing the way another race keeps their hair maintained, so I have no issues with it (as long as the person who has the braids isn't an ignoramus).

If I see a non-south east asian person wear a bindi, I cannot judge. I'm not Indian/South-East Asian, therefore I can't assess whether the person wearing the bindi actually appreciates it's cultural value or not.

What bothers me is when someone criticises a feature/hairstyle that certain races have, and then a few months later that same person goes and tries to replicate that feature/hairstyle. I know many people irl who do that, and it bugs me alot. It is hypocritical and ignorant for that person to do such a thing. But I am judging that one person; not an entire race. Therefore, I don't have problems with people of different races putting their hair in braids or having ''big lips'' (which isn't even a trait exclusive to black people).

I can't think of other examples of ''cultural appropriation'' at the moment so sorry if I'm only sticking to a few main points.

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone but that's how I feel.

Well said. I agree with your points. If you said you don't like it, then you go and do it, that's the definition of hypocrisy. Please don't do that people -_-

[Left Now]

That's my point. Culture is a divisive element in society. As long as we think of human culture as cultures, the various peoples of humanity can never be truly united.


Well,in this matter I think I'm gonna disagree with you.I am saying that the world is alive with cultures,not culture.Culture is not just a result of being 46 chromosomes human,but a result of being 46 chromosomes humans living in different areas with certain enviromental and social conditions.

The thing which is an advantage in another culture can be a terrible disadvantage in another culture,so no culture must overwhelm another culture because cultures are made and tempered according to conditions of a certain area through time;however,cultures can and have to be in contact with each others.

Alongside reforming its own disadvantages,a culture can get the advantages and earnings of another culture and then improve and change them according to its own environmental and social and time conditions,and avoid getting that culture's disadvantages and advantages that can be disadvantages according to its own conditions.

This way unity is possibe,with different cultures with different people helping each others to improve according to the conditions of each one,but not overwhelming each others.

In Farsi literature we call it "Unity in Diversity"

[Saint of Sinners]

Well,in this matter I think I'm gonna disagree with you.I am saying that the world is alive with cultures,not culture.Culture is not just a result of being 46 chromosomes human,but a result of being 46 chromosomes humans living in different areas with certain enviromental and social conditions.

The thing which is an advantage in another culture can be a terrible disadvantage in another culture,so no culture must overwhelm another culture because cultures are made and tempered according to conditions of a certain area through time;however,cultures can and have to be in contact with each others.

Alongside reforming its own disadvantages,a culture can get the advantages and earnings of another culture and then improve and change them according to its own environmental and social and time conditions,and avoid getting that culture's disadvantages and advantages that can be disadvantages according to its own conditions.

This way unity is possibe,with different cultures with different people helping each others to improve according to the conditions of each one,but not overwhelming each others.

In Farsi literature we call it "Unity in Diversity"

Humans are afraid of anything different. Different practices will be viewed with suspicion at best, hatred at worst. Multiple cultures have coexisted all the way throughout history. Accomplishments throughout history were not made by people from differing cultures coming together, they were made by multiple people bound by the same culture working together. If all of humanity is bound by a common culture, even greater things can be achieved. The last time humanity was united we spread throughout the world. The next time humanity is united we will spread throughout the stars.

I'm not advocating for one culture to take over any other. I'm advocating merging all our shared cultures into a smorgasbord of cultures, with all of the strengths and none of the weaknesses, and merging our racial history into the great tapestry of humanity. I'm calling to look beyond race, beyond social and environmental conditions and realizing that behind all that, humanity is, and always has been, one singular species.

To quote John Lennon's "Imagine":

"You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"

[Atom]

The next time humanity is united we will spread throughout the stars.
That's just fucking beautiful. I'll quote you on this sometime in the future.

What I were talking about is that you (abstractly, not specifically you) should not strictly prohibit anyone from other cultures. As I said, you will never succeed if you demand others to take you seriously. Nobody is trying to offend your culture by dressing accordingly. Do you think people dress like this thinking "I'll look funny dressed like those stupid asians (for example)"? Maybe some, I don't think most of them are. What I'm trying to say is that this kind of behaviour is what actually merges cultures together, imo. I hope I made sense. I get what you're trying to say, and I completely agree with you, but saying that it's wrong for someone to do something that is not of their culture will arouse only negativity.

I also like and support your idea that we all should live under one flag as a species, but I don't see it happening in the near 100 years at least. This is the idea people are not yet ready for. I would suggest practical thinking. We all know the problem, but nobody can come up with the solution. If you have an idealistic thought/idea - try to think of the plan to make it a reality and follow this plan. For example, what do you think we can do, or what should happen for people to start merging their cultures (and states) together?

[Saint of Sinners]

That's just fucking beautiful. I'll quote you on this sometime in the future.

What I were talking about is that you (abstractly, not specifically you) should not strictly prohibit anyone from other cultures. As I said, you will never succeed if you demand others to take you seriously. Nobody is trying to offend your culture by dressing accordingly. Do you think people dress like this thinking "I'll look funny dressed like those stupid asians (for example)"? Maybe some, I don't think most of them are. What I'm trying to say is that this kind of behaviour is what actually merges cultures together, imo. I hope I made sense. I get what you're trying to say, and I completely agree with you, but saying that it's wrong for someone to do something that is not of their culture will arouse only negativity.

I also like and support your idea that we all should live under one flag as a species, but I don't see it happening in the near 100 years at least. This is the idea people are not yet ready for. I would suggest practical thinking. We all know the problem, but nobody can come up with the solution. If you have an idealistic thought/idea - try to think of the plan to make it a reality and follow this plan. For example, what do you think we can do, or what should happen for people to start merging their cultures (and states) together?

I understand what you're trying to say. I was talking about that minority who dress to offend with intention. Bastards like this definitely exist.

And nope lol. It's not my desire to change the world. Merely observe and reflect. Let somebody else undertake that quest. That person will pass into legend. I'm happy with just observing, recording and recounting the process.

[Vlerchan]

Accomplishments throughout history were not made by people from differing cultures coming together, they were made by multiple people bound by the same culture working together.
I find - rather - that all humanities greatest achievements - maths, science, philosophy, etc. - have been the combined effort of people spanning across numerous cultures at numerous times. Our culture gives us a unique perspective and that's the reason our greatest achievements have required development across multiple cultures. One perspective would find it possible to advance through a problem another found impossible.

The last time humanity was united we spread throughout the world.
When did this happen?

---

It's also the case that what drove the Europeans across the world and the US & USSR into space was competition between cultures and not a common culture. I don't mean to claim that it's not possible for cultures to cooperate (the EU is an example of this). I just mean we can be quite productive as a species in competition.

I'm advocating merging all our shared cultures into a smorgasbord of cultures, with all of the strengths and none of the weaknesses[.]
The issue here is that what might be something I consider a strength and something I consider a weakness in defined with reference to my own culture (i.e. ethnocentrism) It's impossible to conduct an objective analysis.

I'm calling to look beyond race, beyond social and environmental conditions and realizing that behind all that, humanity is, and always has been, one singular species.
I don't see why this requires us to sacrifice our identities.

---

I get what you're trying to say, and I completely agree with you, but saying that it's wrong for someone to do something that is not of their culture will arouse only negativity.
This is a perfect example of the ethnocentrism I mentioned.

Because getting back to what I mentioned about the phenomenon earlier:

I can understand when groups don't share the same internationalist outlook and their traditions happen to be, as such, intimately entwined with their statues within their own unique historical heritage as a people. It's impossible to form a genuine impersonation of a tradition like this, when that tradition makes an explicit rejection of your participation.

People who criticise the lack of universalism of other cultures tend to do this from a position contingent on the universalism in their own cultures. It's the same as stating: "X culture is wrong because Y culture is right".

[Left Now]

Humans are afraid of anything different. Different practices will be viewed with suspicion at best, hatred at worst. Multiple cultures have coexisted all the way throughout history. Accomplishments throughout history were not made by people from differing cultures coming together, they were made by multiple people bound by the same culture working together. If all of humanity is bound by a common culture, even greater things can be achieved. The last time humanity was united we spread throughout the world. The next time humanity is united we will spread throughout the stars.

I'm not advocating for one culture to take over any other. I'm advocating merging all our shared cultures into a smorgasbord of cultures, with all of the strengths and none of the weaknesses, and merging our racial history into the great tapestry of humanity. I'm calling to look beyond race, beyond social and environmental conditions and realizing that behind all that, humanity is, and always has been, one singular species.

To quote John Lennon's "Imagine":

"You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"

So?I was saying that it is possible to have Unity in Diversity,but you are saying that it's not possible?These are not differences which make conflicts,but similarities.Differences may only make disagreements,but these are similarities that each of us think we are right and the other wrong that make conflicts.A unicultural world will just make everything worse,because as I said some advantages of one culture can be grave disadvantages in another.Also if we want to have one culture in this world,even if all goods could be gathered in one place,all bads would be gathered in one place too.All bads together are more effective than all goods together when it comes to such a matter like this.

Why shouldn't members of different cultures put this "We are not here to understand you but to make you understand" thing aside when being in contact with each others instead of trying to make a unicultural world?The first one is surely easier than second one and also more progressive,because as I said cultures are results of humans living in different certain environments,so the only way to improve and reform them is to let members of that culture itself do it according to their time,environmental and social conditions.


Plus+Many achievements throughout history were made by different people from different cultures cooperating with each others.


Also,we didn't belong to one course or culture when we spreaded throughout the world.Actually we were not even 46 chromosomes humans when it happened,just primary primates who were already spread throughout the world and most of those of them who evolved into 46 chromosomes creatures became humans.Others which evolved became todays other primates.

[Atom]

These are not differences which make conflicts, but similarities. Differences may only make disagreements, but these are similarities that each of us think we are right and the other wrong that make conflicts.

...let members of that culture itself do it according to their time, environmental and social conditions.
Well said.

This is a perfect example of the ethnocentrism I mentioned.
I sure do love being a guinea pig.

__________________

I also have changed my mind since my last post. Merging all the countries in one is a horrible idea economically and pragmatically. Moreover, it impedes all the opportunity and mobility of an individual.
Reducing the total number of them (of almost 200) by like a half is still a good idea, imo.

[Saint of Sinners]

I find - rather - that all humanities greatest achievements - maths, science, philosophy, etc. - have been the combined effort of people spanning across numerous cultures at numerous times. Our culture gives us a unique perspective and that's the reason our greatest achievements have required development across multiple cultures. One perspective would find it possible to advance through a problem another found impossible.

Algebra was invented by the Arabs, not an Arab-European team. Zero was invented independently by the Babylonians, Mayans and Indians. Granted the Babylonians got their number system from the Sumerians, but they did not exist by that time. The Dutch invented the steering wheel. The Chinese invented gunpowder. Humans build achievements on the shoulders of giants, but the breakthroughs are achieved independently without external help from foreign peoples as long as they have a suitable starting point. So yes, they might use accumulated knowledge as a base but the actual development is done within the culture.

Of course nowadays international research teams are common, which greatly sped up progress as ideas are no longer bound by region.


When did this happen?

Prehistory. The spread of Cro Magnons out of Africa. Before we settled down in different areas and our culture began diverging.


It's also the case that what drove the Europeans across the world and the US & USSR into space was competition between cultures and not a common culture. I don't mean to claim that it's not possible for cultures to cooperate (the EU is an example of this). I just mean we can be quite productive as a species in competition.

Competition does bring about great speed in progress, but cooperation allows for more effective transfer of technology and ideas, thus increasing the potential for greater advancements. However cooperation has the disadvantage of providing less inherent motivation than competition, but seeing the problems in the natural now (Climate change, Energy crisis, Relegious radicals etc), saving our asses is a fair motivator.



The issue here is that what might be something I consider a strength and something I consider a weakness in defined with reference to my own culture (i.e. ethnocentrism) It's impossible to conduct an objective analysis.



Culture is a human invention which is not bound by any of the laws of nature. It is literally all opinion and zero facts. As it is a fluid, evolving and innately human concept, objective analysis is impossible. However we can't not analyse it simply because we can't. We try our best, and though we will never get it right, at least we attempted.


I don't see why this requires us to sacrifice our identities.


Sacrifice? No, you don't lose any part of your culture by amalgamating with other cultures.

I can understand when groups don't share the same internationalist outlook and their traditions happen to be, as such, intimately entwined with their statues within their own unique historical heritage as a people. It's impossible to form a genuine impersonation of a tradition like this, when that tradition makes an explicit rejection of your participation.[/indent]

People who criticise the lack of universalism of other cultures tend to do this from a position contingent on the universalism in their own cultures. It's the same as stating: "X culture is wrong because Y culture is right".

As before Culture is a human invention. Humanity's default state is no culture, same as any other animal. Culture is only introduced through location and society. Universalism through lack of culture is natural, and therefore a call for universalism should not be interpreted as influenced by culture, but from the lack of it. " X culture should be combined with Y culture as reverting to no culture is even more drastic and so Universalism is the next closet thing to default human state"

[Saint of Sinners]

So?I was saying that it is possible to have Unity in Diversity,but you are saying that it's not possible?These are not differences which make conflicts,but similarities.Differences may only make disagreements,but these are similarities that each of us think we are right and the other wrong that make conflicts.A unicultural world will just make everything worse,because as I said some advantages of one culture can be grave disadvantages in another.Also if we want to have one culture in this world,even if all goods could be gathered in one place,all bads would be gathered in one place too.All bads together are more effective than all goods together when it comes to such a matter like this.

Human beings are biologically identical. Modern technology can overcome geographical and environmental constraints. Why would any culture be "Bad" for any other?



Why shouldn't members of different cultures put this "We are not here to understand you but to make you understand" thing aside when being in contact with each others instead of trying to make a unicultural world?The first one is surely easier than second one and also more progressive,because as I said cultures are results of humans living in different certain environments,so the only way to improve and reform them is to let members of that culture itself do it according to their time,environmental and social conditions.




Because humans are selfish bastards and like to impose their culture on others no matter what. History has clearly shown this. So if everyone has the same culture, there won't be anything to impose on anybody.


Plus+Many achievements throughout history were made by different people from different cultures cooperating with each others.


Those tend to be the more modern achievements with the advent of globalization. The Chinese and Egyptians invented paper separately, for example. Think about the time that would have been saved if they worked together.

And nowadays where international research teams are becoming commonplace and advances are being made faster than ever before. So people overcoming the culture barrier and working together is better than each culture working alone.


Also,we didn't belong to one course or culture when we spreaded throughout the world.Actually we were not even 46 chromosomes humans when it happened,just primary primates who were already spread throughout the world and most of those of them who evolved into 46 chromosomes creatures became humans.Others which evolved became todays other primates.


Yes we did. Humans are not descended from different primates.We diverged from the rest of the apes as a singular species with 46 chromosomes. Multiple species of humans did evolve, but the rest of the Homo genus went extinct. All humans alive today are descended from Homo Sapiens Sapiens which lived in sub Saharan Africa and only started to migrate around the world 10000 years ago. We were united once.

[Saint of Sinners]

I also have changed my mind since my last post. Merging all the countries in one is a horrible idea economically and pragmatically. Moreover, it impedes all the opportunity and mobility of an individual.
Reducing the total number of them (of almost 200) by like a half is still a good idea, imo.

Care to elaborate?

Sorry for multiple posting, but combining multiquoted multiquotes is just really hard to read and confusing, when they're directed to different people.

[Atom]

Care to elaborate?
I'll try.
Economically. It's not a 100% but I think that everything would be monopolized, or at least most of the things. And who would control the set price?
I believe that in a one big country there would be either a very big governmental influence, or very small one. Neither is good. Nobody wants (I surely don't) to be watch 24/7 by Big Brother and nobody wants (right?) anarchy.
Basically I just don't see how it would work out with the number of people we have right now.
Mobility I think is simple to understand. For example, I don't like my country, I don't want to live in the place that is against everything that I represent and love. So what do I do? I can emigrate. So obviously you can't do that when the whole world is like this.

tl;dr having only 1 regime leaves no freedom.

But again, this could work actually. Because when people have no choice - they have less entropy in their minds, even if they are being treated badly.

I think the people is the main problem. Probably. I mean the fact that there are 7.5 billion of us. I see it working on a smaller territories and/or with a smaller amount of people. And this is basically what we have right now, multiplied by 200.

[fairmaiden]

http://i.imgur.com/b50ZGQw.png

I'm not sure if this is ''cultural appropriation'', but this is pretty disrespectful and rude.
It's obvious the girl in the post has deliberately chosen to go and smoke/vape/whatever directly infront of a depiction of a Hindu god, just so she can get a cool looking picture to upload to instagram or wherever she uploaded it to.

I've never seen a Hindu person go and smoke in front of a biblical statue or a islamic statue, so why does this person think it's acceptable?

[Left Now]

Human beings are biologically identical. Modern technology can overcome geographical and environmental constraints. Why would any culture be "Bad" for any other?


Firsr may I ask if you are a biology student or not?Because I am going to answer this question with a biologic reason.Or let us just say do you know what Sickle-cell disease is?Or even Diversive Choice?

Because humans are selfish bastards and like to impose their culture on others no matter what. History has clearly shown this. So if everyone has the same culture, there won't be anything to impose on anybody.


Did you know that A'ag-ghoiolons and Ghera-ghoiolons,Ghors and Ghaznavids and Seljuks and Khwarazmids were all from same culture with closest cultural elements?And do you know how much bloodshed happened only because of similarities which were among them?

Or did you know Bani Hashem and Bani Abbas were both connected branches of Ghoraish Tribe with exactly same culture and traditions?Did you know there were over 400 years of surpression of Bani Hashem by Bani Abbas who were the family in charge of Abbasid Caliphate?Were their cultures different?No.But they were different.

Until the time there are differences among humans,impossing something on others by people can exist,no matter you make an unicultural world or not,although making a unicultural itself is way of impossing itself.Because if you really want only one culture to exist,then you must surpress anyone who wants to act differently to keep the unity.That's exactly what logic can never accept .

The best way to solve this is to return to what we were;understand each others' differences,not trying to make an uthopia with every one be the same.

Did you know when Asians and Europeans first met each others in what we today call America,what they did?They shook hands with each others.As simple as this.


Those tend to be the more modern achievements with the advent of globalization. The Chinese and Egyptians invented paper separately, for example. Think about the time that would have been saved if they worked together.

And nowadays where international research teams are becoming commonplace and advances are being made faster than ever before. So people overcoming the culture barrier and working together is better than each culture working alone.


Then you surely do not know examples like Rumi and Jamshid Kashani,or other Indian and Iranian and Middle Eastern and Chinese and Byzantine mathematicians during Medieval Ages whom their cooperations made the were basics of today's Mathematics.None of them ignored their cultures,but shared the intelligence which they gathered themselves in their own culture.

Sharing,understanding differences.


Yes we did. Humans are not descended from different primates.We diverged from the rest of the apes as a singular species with 46 chromosomes. Multiple species of humans did evolve, but the rest of the Homo genus went extinct. All humans alive today are descended from Homo Sapiens Sapiens which lived in sub Saharan Africa and only started to migrate around the world 10000 years ago. We were united once.


And those sub-saharan Homo Sapiens themselves were far descendants of Reptiles who used to live somewhere else.Homo Sapiens were not humans,they were 46 chromosomes creatures with different Genes from today's humans.They began to evolve into what we call humans today after seperation and spreading throughout the world.So they were primates who then completed their evolution line and turned into humans.Also not all Homo Sapiens who evolved into humans were sub-saharan,most of them were.

I am a biology student myself.

Anyway,we were not united even after complete evolution.

[fairmaiden]

Or let us just say do you know what Sickle-cell disease is?

Isn't sickle-cell disease a serious blood disorder which usually occurs in African, Middle Eastern, Caribbean and Asian people?

[Left Now]

Isn't sickle-cell disease a serious blood disorder which usually occurs in African, Middle Eastern, Caribbean and Asian people?

And Mediterranean yes.

That's right.It is a Genetical Disorder which happens when a person is a HBss Homozygous.

[fairmaiden]

And Mediterranean yes.

That's right.It is a Genetical Disorder which happens when a person is a HBss Homozygous.
Ah ok.

[Saint of Sinners]

Firsr may I ask if you are a biology student or not?Because I am going to answer this question with a biologic reason.Or let us just say do you know what Sickle-cell disease is?Or even Diversive Choice?


Sickle cell disease is a genetic condition and not a cultural one. It does not 'benefit some cultures and harm others', it is bad for anybody born with it. Also googling Diversive choice gets me nothing, so no I have no clue what it is.

Did you know that A'ag-ghoiolons and Ghera-ghoiolons,Ghors and Ghaznavids and Seljuks and Khwarazmids were all from same culture with closest cultural elements?And do you know how much bloodshed happened only because of similarities which were among them?

Or did you know Bani Hashem and Bani Abbas were both connected branches of Ghoraish Tribe with exactly same culture and traditions?Did you know there were over 400 years of surpression of Bani Hashem by Bani Abbas who were the family in charge of Abbasid Caliphate?Were their cultures different?No.But they were different.

Your examples show that humans can't even always cooperate with similar cultures, what are the chances of them cooperating when they are different?

The issue here is nothing to do with the cultural similarity, but the people themselves drawing their own distinctions between groups. It showcases humanity's natural 'us vs them' mentality, which is exactly what I'm addressing. Sometimes humans still fight when they have the same culture, but that does not mean that they will fight less with different cultures.


Until the time there are differences among humans,impossing something on others by people can exist,no matter you make an unicultural world or not,although making a unicultural itself is way of impossing itself.Because if you really want only one culture to exist,then you must surpress anyone who wants to act differently to keep the unity.That's exactly what logic can never accept .


I'm not suppressing anybody who acts differently. My original point was that anybody should be able to do whatever cultural practices they want, no matter what culture is it. All I said was that people shouldn't stop anybody from enjoying any culture they want. Where did i say that we should suppress all other cultures? Rather than forcing culture on anybody i'm giving people the freedom to choose to enjoy any culture they desire, and i'm saying people shouldn't argue that x race is not allowed to do y culture. The unity comes through multiculturalism, not uniculturalism. If everybody is free to celebrate any culture, then cultural divide would not be an issue as everyone belongs to the same "all the cultures" of humanity.


The best way to solve this is to return to what we were;understand each others' differences,not trying to make an uthopia with every one be the same.

Understanding does not resolve the issue. Differences bring about inequality, and inequality is the source of conflict.


Did you know when Asians and Europeans first met each others in what we today call America,what they did?They shook hands with each others.As simple as this.


1. Native Americans are Clovis not Asian.

2. The first contact between Europeans and Native Americans were the Vikings in the 10th century.. They did not shake hands. The Vikings tried to harvest timber before the Natives chased them away.

3. You forgot that in the years after the first Europeans shook hands with the natives the Europeans very nearly exterminated all of them.



Then you surely do not know examples like Rumi and Jamshid Kashani,or other Indian and Iranian and Middle Eastern and Chinese and Byzantine mathematicians during Medieval Ages whom their cooperations made the were basics of today's Mathematics.None of them ignored their cultures,but shared the intelligence which they gathered themselves in their own culture.

Sharing,understanding differences.


Rumi and Jamshid Kashani Show a good example of setting aside cultural differences for the sake of progress, which is in keeping with my stand. Sharing a common multiculture is a good way to set aside cultural differences.

As far as I can tell, Indian and Iranian and Middle Eastern and Chinese and Byzantine mathimaticians came up with algebra Independently.

And those sub-saharan Homo Sapiens themselves were far descendants of Reptiles who used to live somewhere else.Homo Sapiens were not humans,they were 46 chromosomes creatures with different Genes from today's humans.They began to evolve into what we call humans today after seperation and spreading throughout the world.So they were primates who then completed their evolution line and turned into humans.Also not all Homo Sapiens who evolved into humans were sub-saharan,most of them were.

Wat -_-

Ok let's break it down.

And those sub-saharan Homo Sapiens themselves were far descendants of Reptiles who used to live somewhere else.

Reptiles? Mammals have been separated from reptile for >2 million years.

Homo Sapiens were not humans,they were 46 chromosomes creatures with different Genes from today's humans.

That's what I said. Homo sapiens are not today's humans. Homo Sapiens Sapiens are anatomically modern humans. Which is the same type that migrated out of Africa.

"Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago, that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa at some point between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced more primitive populations of the genus Homo such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans)

They began to evolve into what we call humans today after seperation and spreading throughout the world.

Anatomically modern humans evolved before separation, as they were the species that seperated.

So they were primates who then completed their evolution line and turned into humans.

No. Evolution is not a 'line' and there is nothing to 'complete'. And ancestral primates did not 'turn into' humans just like that.

Also not all Homo Sapiens who evolved into humans were sub-saharan,most of them were.

Where are you getting this information? I'm pretty sure the scientific consensus is that all other fossils of fully modern humans outside Africa have been dated to more recent times.


I am a biology student myself.


And I am not. I hope you're not trying to use an argument from authority.


Anyway,we were not united even after complete evolution.

Care to explain this statement? I'm not really clear about what you mean :/

I'll try.
Economically. It's not a 100% but I think that everything would be monopolized, or at least most of the things. And who would control the set price?
I believe that in a one big country there would be either a very big governmental influence, or very small one. Neither is good. Nobody wants (I surely don't) to be watch 24/7 by Big Brother and nobody wants (right?) anarchy.
Basically I just don't see how it would work out with the number of people we have right now.
Mobility I think is simple to understand. For example, I don't like my country, I don't want to live in the place that is against everything that I represent and love. So what do I do? I can emigrate. So obviously you can't do that when the whole world is like this.

tl;dr having only 1 regime leaves no freedom.

But again, this could work actually. Because when people have no choice - they have less entropy in their minds, even if they are being treated badly.

I think the people is the main problem. Probably. I mean the fact that there are 7.5 billion of us. I see it working on a smaller territories and/or with a smaller amount of people. And this is basically what we have right now, multiplied by 200.


I agree, there are many problems that have to be sorted out and no clear solution. But immigration is not as open and easy as it sounds too.

PS: Anarchy isn't as bad as you think, and definitely does not involve leather clothed men driving around in dune buggies shooting each other ;)

Double Post merged. Please use the edit or multi function. -HN

[Vlerchan]

Rather than forcing culture on anybody i'm giving people the freedom to choose to enjoy any culture they desire, and i'm saying people shouldn't argue that x race is not allowed to do y culture. The unity comes through multiculturalism, not uniculturalism.
I saw this later on, after I'd done responding with regards to the below, though I left the below there because it's an accurate characterisation of my views on the subject anyway. If this is what you actually want, then I've just gone and completely misinterpreted you. But, of course, I still don't agree that people should just be allowed to go and adopt other people's cultures, for the reasons I already mentioned. Some cultures and constructed in such a way that they necessarily exclude outsiders, and it's impossible to pose an impersonation of this culture, without at the same time being in conflict with the values of this culture.

---

Algebra was invented by the Arabs, not an Arab-European team.
Has there been no developments in the field since?

Granted the Babylonians got their number system from the Sumerians, but they did not exist by that time.
That doesn't make a difference. I'm not claiming that the cultures need to work together. I'm claiming that the cultures built on top of the work of other cultures. This conception of the number system was a combined effort of the Babylonians and Sumerians, even if there wasn't explicit co-operation.

The Dutch invented the steering wheel.
The modern automobile is the invention of Italians, Germans, French, English, the Japanese, Americans, and others.

The Chinese invented gunpowder.[/queote]
How many cultures then built on this achievement in different ways?

[quote=Saint of Sinners]So yes, they might use accumulated knowledge as a base but the actual development is done within the culture.
This is what I meant. That's why I used fields - and not particular developments - as examples. Because to the state of development of communication technologies, amongst other things, in pre-modern times the scope for micro-advancements to occur outside of one culture, through intercultural efforts, was slim. But macro-advancements are the results of intercultural efforts.

Prehistory. The spread of Cro Magnons out of Africa. Before we settled down in different areas and our culture began diverging.
Is there evidence that all these peoples were culturally homogeneous until settlement?

Culture is a human invention which is not bound by any of the laws of nature. It is literally all opinion and zero facts. As it is a fluid, evolving and innately human concept, objective analysis is impossible. However we can't not analyse it simply because we can't. We try our best, and though we will never get it right, at least we attempted.
You seem to be missing the point of my claim.

'Your best' is going to be a product of your culture. This would be fine, if it wasn't the case that you wanted to eliminate this other culture in favour of 'your best', which is the worst sort of ethnocentrism.

Sacrifice? No, you don't lose any part of your culture by amalgamating with other cultures.
What if it's not part of 'the best we can do' in your opinion?

It's the case that creating one culture necessarily involves the destruction of other cultures. In Ireland it's a cultural tradition for our dead to b e buried, how is that to be reconciled with another's cultural tradition to be cremated? for example. You can claim that people can do either, but then you're not merging cultures.

As before Culture is a human invention.
I don't see this as a good enough reason to eliminate cultural distinctions

Should we also abolish all alternative: morality, money, language, all semiosis ever, (etc.)?

Humanity's default state is no culture, same as any other animal.
If we completely atomise individuals from the social settings (and so, constructed identities) then, yes, culture doesn't exist.

The problem is that I consider this situation so removed from actual reality that I don't figure it worth considering.

Universalism through lack of culture is natural, and therefore a call for universalism should not be interpreted as influenced by culture, but from the lack of it.
Universalism is only natural in liberal thought experiments.

X culture should be combined with Y culture as reverting to no culture is even more drastic and so Universalism is the next closet thing to default human state"
You're engaging in tow lines of fallacious reasoning here:
The Is-Ought problem: There's no reason to equate natural with good, at all;
Monopolising 'too drastic': I find the idea of a universal culture to drastic a consideration;

which makes what you're saying meaningless.

---

So if everyone has the same culture, there won't be anything to impose on anybody.
You seem to be forgetting that 'the same culture' needs to be imposed on people some how.

---

Economically. It's not a 100% but I think that everything would be monopolized, or at least most of the things. And who would control the set price?
I can't imagine why you would think everything would be monoplised.

The prices would be determined through the process of supply and demand, like now.

On the economic front you'd have things like tax and regulation harmonisation, free trade, common property rights procedures, (etc.), which would allow better management of the economy for the common good, and production to be undertaken at its most efficient (based on comparative advantage) besides. Economic globalisation is, for sure, a good thing.
I believe that in a one big country there would be either a very big governmental influence, or very small one.
Or federalism. Federalism is what I'd suggest.

[Atom]

I agree, there are many problems that have to be sorted out and no clear solution.
This is exactly what futurists are trying to do.

But immigration is not as open and easy as it sounds too.
Oh trust me, I know. I'm planning on it myself so I've done my research. Still better than nothing, I believe.
As I see it, if people are not allowed such mobility, then it is almost like social darwinism. Which I can hardly imagine existing for a long period of time. People who rule such a society will be assassinated pretty fast, imo. And if not this, than we get what we have right now. But there is a lot of gaps in my opinion on the subject, so I most like have missed something obvious, I'm sorry.

__________________

I can't imagine why you would think everything would be monopolised.

The prices would be determined through the process of supply and demand, like now.

On the economic front you'd have things like tax and regulation harmonisation, free trade, common property rights procedures, (etc.), which would allow better management of the economy for the common good, and production to be undertaken at its most efficient (based on comparative advantage) besides. Economic globalisation is, for sure, a good thing.
I can't even say why, but I can only see such system as being internally corrupt.

Or federalism. Federalism is what I'd suggest.I don't see how it would change the fact that everyone still would have to obey the same book of laws and not be able to escape prosecution for opinion different from the government's.

[Vlerchan]

I can't even say why, but I can only see such system as being internally corrupt.
Well, if you do figure out why, I'm interested in hearing.

I don't see how it would change the fact that everyone still would have to obey the same book of laws and not be able to escape prosecution for opinion different from the government's.
You just get involved in large-scale subsidiarity.

[Miserabilia]

If people want to wear clothing and eat food from different cultures, why the fuck would someone care? As long as they're not destroying your culture, they are actualy spreading it and helping preserve it. This whole idea of one group of people needing one culture and having it completely seperate from other cultures just leads to seperation which is a setback to society as a whole. If a group of thai budhiest comes live in the US, they wouldn't forbid them to wear baseball hats and eat hotdogs, so americans should also be allowed to buy budha statues and such.

[Vlerchan]

As long as they're not destroying your culture, they are actualy spreading it and helping preserve it.
The issue is that to some this "spreading [and] preserving" contributes to the desacralisation of that culture, and is quite akin to destroying it. If you can't make a genuine impersonation of a culture because that culture makes an explicit attempt to reject you, then you are not doing good for it.

This whole idea of one group of people needing one culture and having it completely seperate from other cultures just leads to seperation which is a setback to society as a whole.
I have no idea what it is a setback to.

People from different cultures can still co-operate.

If a group of thai budhiest comes live in the US, they wouldn't forbid them to wear baseball hats and eat hotdogs, so americans should also be allowed to buy budha statues and such.
This is the main problem. You're making culture out to be something to be consumed. It's not. No-one with an actual culture wants to see their culture flattened out towards mass culture, because once that happens it stops being a worthwhile vehicle for expression. Consider how sex has become a less and less potent means of expressing emotion as it's become more and more pervasive as a routine activity.