| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » Multiculturalism doesn't work
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Keith Hudson |
 Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This group might be interested in a posting of mine to another group.
<<<<
Multiculturalism doesn't work
"For 45 years, the Iron Curtain was the central dividing line in
Europe. That line has moved several hundred miles east. It is now the
line separating the peoples of Western Christianity, on the one hand,
from Muslim and Orthodox peoples on the other." Samuel Huntington, New
Perspective Quarterly (Winter 2006)
Samuel Huntington seemed to be astonishingly prescient when his book,
The Clash of Civilizations (1996) was followed only five years later
by the attack of fanatical Muslims on the Twin Towers in New York. He
is also far too good an historian not to admit -- as he does later in
an interview in the NPQ -- that there are other dividing lines between
major cultures.
He doesn't detail these in the rest of his interview but, for the sake
of balance, let me briefly mention the differences in culture between
North and South America, between Europe and Africa, between China and
the West, between Japan and the West -- and many more lesser ones. All
these cultural differences are quite as palpable as that between the
"liberal" West and Islam but not so dangerous because they don't have
such an obviously sharp pivot (the concentrated oil resources of the
Middle East) to spin around.
Astonishingly, however, Huntington doesn't mention one of the starkest
culture differences of them all. In a long interview with the NPQ
devoted almost completely to the West-Islam divide he doesn't even
hint at the clash between Sunnis and Shias -- a thousand year-old
conflict which has never been resolved even though they have often
lived cheek by jowl with one another. In Iraq at the present tim, the
conflict is, if anything, even more murderous between themselves as
that between either of them and their American occupiers. The latest
outrage, involving over 150 deaths in a Baghdad market is yet further
tragic evidence of this.
The fact of all-too-frequent culture clashes is undeniable. But
Huntington's thesis is woefully incomplete. Firstly, he doesn't tie it
down to its essence. This is that we are, instinctively, a tribalistic
species. Living in small groups originally, the tribes have become
cities, regions, or nation-states or, much more recently in the
developed world, precise social classes which, generally, avoid one
another in their free time. We are happy to admit the existence of
other tribes (or social classes), and will indeed trade peacefully
with one another, but most of us are only comfortable when we spend
most of our time consorting with others of almost identical culture.
Huntington simply doesn't make this basic connection which all
evolutionary biologists now take for granted after thousands of times
more observation and research than any single historian is able to do.
Secondly, when trade and normal economic activities break down and
cultures actually go to war -- as the Sunnis and the Shias are
presently doing in Iraq -- it is because vital resources are at the
root of it, and each side wishes to have the status and power to
control them -- in this case, oil royalties. In Saddam Hussein's time
the Sunnis were greatly favoured over the Shias and, second only to
Saddam's immediate Baathist entourage, had power over the Shias.
Becauase of Iraq's new Constitution the position is now totally
reversed and the Sunnis don't like it -- indeed, murdering because of
it, and the Shias are responding in kind.
When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer -- namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
>>>> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:55 am |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 4, 12:19?pm, "Keith Hudson" <keithhud...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: This group might be interested in a posting of mine to another group.
Multiculturalism doesn't work
"For 45 years, the Iron Curtain was the central dividing line in
Europe. That line has moved several hundred miles east. It is now the
line separating the peoples of Western Christianity, on the one hand,
from Muslim and Orthodox peoples on the other." Samuel Huntington, New
Perspective Quarterly (Winter 2006)
Samuel Huntington seemed to be astonishingly prescient when his book,
The Clash of Civilizations (1996) was followed only five years later
by the attack of fanatical Muslims on the Twin Towers in New York. He
is also far too good an historian not to admit -- as he does later in
an interview in the NPQ -- that there are other dividing lines between
major cultures.
He doesn't detail these in the rest of his interview but, for the sake
of balance, let me briefly mention the differences in culture between
North and South America, between Europe and Africa, between China and
the West, between Japan and the West -- and many more lesser ones. All
these cultural differences are quite as palpable as that between the
"liberal" West and Islam but not so dangerous because they don't have
such an obviously sharp pivot (the concentrated oil resources of the
Middle East) to spin around.
Astonishingly, however, Huntington doesn't mention one of the starkest
culture differences of them all. In a long interview with the NPQ
devoted almost completely to the West-Islam divide he doesn't even
hint at the clash between Sunnis and Shias -- a thousand year-old
conflict which has never been resolved even though they have often
lived cheek by jowl with one another. In Iraq at the present tim, the
conflict is, if anything, even more murderous between themselves as
that between either of them and their American occupiers. The latest
outrage, involving over 150 deaths in a Baghdad market is yet further
tragic evidence of this.
The fact of all-too-frequent culture clashes is undeniable. But
Huntington's thesis is woefully incomplete. Firstly, he doesn't tie it
down to its essence. This is that we are, instinctively, a tribalistic
species. Living in small groups originally, the tribes have become
cities, regions, or nation-states or, much more recently in the
developed world, precise social classes which, generally, avoid one
another in their free time. We are happy to admit the existence of
other tribes (or social classes), and will indeed trade peacefully
with one another, but most of us are only comfortable when we spend
most of our time consorting with others of almost identical culture.
Huntington simply doesn't make this basic connection which all
evolutionary biologists now take for granted after thousands of times
more observation and research than any single historian is able to do.
Secondly, when trade and normal economic activities break down and
cultures actually go to war -- as the Sunnis and the Shias are
presently doing in Iraq -- it is because vital resources are at the
root of it, and each side wishes to have the status and power to
control them -- in this case, oil royalties. In Saddam Hussein's time
the Sunnis were greatly favoured over the Shias and, second only to
Saddam's immediate Baathist entourage, had power over the Shias.
Becauase of Iraq's new Constitution the position is now totally
reversed and the Sunnis don't like it -- indeed, murdering because of
it, and the Shias are responding in kind.
When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer -- namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer --
namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will
result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
Ragland: Not much of a solution. Are you arguing for physical
separation i.e. segregation, apartheid?...and genocide as the
solutions to the problems of multi-culturalism? Quite honestly, I'd
rather see mutual annihilation. You seem to be suggesting this for
even the "developed" countries i.e. U.S., Western Europe, etc. Are you
merely observing this phenomenon or do you personally endorse it. One
could take your argument as the U.S. should back one of the ethnic
groups in Iraq to the disadvantage of others. Your statement,
"Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient
trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place" is telling because there has
not been ever a "sufficient" trading of power slots and resources
between different cultures when they happen to be living in the same
"place". Which kind of creates a hole in multi-culturalism to begin
with.
Michael Ragland |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| g |
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Keith Hudson" <keithhudson@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eq5f3l$oa7$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: This group might be interested in a posting of mine to another group.
Multiculturalism doesn't work
Keith,
Enjoyed this immensely. Amongst the growing pack of books stacked all
around my studio -- snarling and snapping at my ignorance, but never doing
more than nipping at it -- are books on history, genetics, fundamentals of
biology, political philosophy, argumentation, economics, history of
(bio-evo), fundamentals of mathematics,
and books on the art of persuasion (PROPAGANDA).
It takes, for me..., an ENORMOUS amount of deliberation and self-control to
STICK WITH any one of them, because I get no more than a page read before
something said there triggers curiosity that hurls me off to another. (I
stopped going to the library and started buying months ago, because I would
want to check back on something in a book after I had returned it.)
But... pant, pant... let me get to the point... which is...
If there is ANY subject which has helped me more to grasp some overall
understanding of the bits and pieces of information it is the subject of
PROPAGANDA.
And the reason is NOT... NOT... NOT that I want to trick anyone into
agreeing with any agenda. It simply is this:
that reading about what works in persuading anybody of anything helps me to
understand how humans -- including scientists who are humans (:>) and this
old fart layman, who is about as human as anyone can get choose what to take
into account, choose what to dig into, choose what to deem not worth the
effort to look into ...etc.
Simplistic models appeal to us because... duhhhh... they are EASY!
Analogies that work up to a point in paralleling something -- though they
may DEPART ENORMOUSLY from
analogizing beyond a superficial level -- are EASY !
Thinking things through in a disciplined way, with skepticism (but avoiding
cynicism)... or, better yet, in a
MULTI-DISCIPLINED way (:>) is hard damned work... And even if one LOVES
working hard at trying to understand something (heaven knows I revel in it)
the amount of work required is OVERWHELMING.
But I just wanted to share this with you... that studying the "science" (if
you will) of persuasion... which includes selling people on something...
brings into focus how people FANCY themselves to learn and understand
ANYTHING.
If I have an agenda it is but one, TO TRY TO MAKE SENSE TO MYSELF of
some things before I am too old or too dead to go on with it.
How I would LOVE to have "Perplexed's" knowledge of some subjects. And,
maybe if I could stick with studying the fundamentals of biology
generally -- and then more particularly genetics and cellular biology and
physiology and human anatomy and contemporary comparative anatomy and
paleontological comparative anatomy and... here's a good one... taphonomy
(the determination of cause of death, from evidence which can be gathered
from paleontological specimens)... I would have more details to pull
together... and maybe some things would make more sense to me... But I
shall NEVER master even one field, because I do not want to become myopic in
one area to the point of becoming oblivious to another.
..... so on I go, jumping from one thing to another but seeing some things
converging in that process... thank goodness.
But let me emphasize that I have gained from reading about PROPAGANDA (from
the standpoint of gaining a better understanding, or at least a keener FEEL,
for how we humans form our "I-believes," whether grounded in fact or reason
or not... a better feel for how to AVOID embracing some notions just because
they are EASIER than others to grasp.
There is much to be said for Occam's Razor. There is much to be said
against it, as well. There is much to be said in favor of it's being better
to have a simplistic model for how something works than NO IDEA AT ALL.
(The intelligence to think about such distinctions is one part blessing and
nine parts curse, because it dashes one's brains against the realization
that even the specialists among us are grossly LIMITED in ability to grasp
how utterly limited is the finest expertise, if only by virtue of the
circumstance that they have chosen NOT to learn everything else among the
little that is known even in other specialties...)
g |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| g |
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Keith Hudson" <keithhudson@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eq5f3l$oa7$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: This group might be interested in a posting of mine to another group.
SNIP
The fact of all-too-frequent culture clashes is undeniable. But
Huntington's thesis is woefully incomplete. Firstly, he doesn't tie it
down to its essence. This is that we are, instinctively, a tribalistic
species. Living in small groups originally, the tribes have become
cities, regions, or nation-states or, much more recently in the
developed world, precise social classes which, generally, avoid one
another in their free time. We are happy to admit the existence of
other tribes (or social classes), and will indeed trade peacefully
with one another, but most of us are only comfortable when we spend
most of our time consorting with others of almost identical culture.
Huntington simply doesn't make this basic connection which all
evolutionary biologists now take for granted after thousands of times
more observation and research than any single historian is able to do.
SNIP
Do you ever read something someone has written; and see in your own thinking
a very different set of actors and operations at play or, if not different,
then a lot more complex... yet you cannot respond without first supplying
many of those other actors and operations?
This happens to me quite frequently; and the ideas here are an example. (No
doubt that is how Perplexed feels when I say something about genes... since
he has a far more extensive repertoire of knowledge about the nitty.
So much is leaped over, even in the one paragraph above, that it would take
me many pages of filling you in on what I think, and where I am, involving
the issues addressed... not pages of argumentation, mind you... but pages of
telling you many things not alluded to, nor (evidently) considered in your
comments.
Where things turn to total mud to me is the point where you start to talk
about "tribalism."
For me most references to "tribalism," just zing off into simplistic
buzz-talk without saying much of anything.
But don't get me wrong. If a person has been offered a grossly simplistic
model which seems to bypass the need for a thousand details, why should he
not see it as making sense. After all, this is a part of the meaning behind
the saying, "The devil is in the details."
When I studied political science, more decades ago than I would prefer it to
have been, my favorite class of all the classes ever I attended in my major
was a two-semester graduate seminar (though I was an undergrad) -- in which
a I was permitted to sit in a round-table with post-grads and an
extraordinarily non-closed-minded professor, and a bona fide genius to
boot -- and TAKE APART ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING WE EVER HAD THOUGHT
WE HAD LEARNED: definitions, myopic philosopher's models, myopic schools
of thought, political classifications, popular stereotypes, politicians'
sound bites, argumentations for and against anything and everything any of
us might ever have dared to hold as a conviction about any such thing as a
"right."
The kindly, patient monitoring professor thrilled us all, again and again
when he would listen to one of us get on a soap box and run down... and then
softly say, "Let me offer you an antidote for that..." whereupon he would
offer an alternative definition (or a dozen or more), ANOTHER philosopher's
offerings of facts, arguments, conclusions running contrary to each we had
cited, a contrary sound bite...
NEVER was that wonderful old genius stumped for an antidote to ANY position.
And, oh brother, did icons and
cherished political notions end up in shambles. And he always addressed
others of us around the table as "Mr. (our last name)."
How devoutly I would wish to have such a plethora of antidotes to offer you
for the catch-all "tribalism" as being a veritable silver bullet for slaying
counter argumentation against it. And how I ache to know that old fellow is
no longer alive, nor here to assist in what I am trying to convey... (He
would not take anybody's side on anything, but would simply play devil's
advocate and offer the offsetting side of anything... courteously, with
respect and with humor that sometimes left us laughing too hard to take
offense.)
Some of the most popular SYNTHESIZING HYPOTHESES of "history of human social
development" of that day, and this, were reduced at that round table to
little more than one side of a far more UNSETTLED set of "opinions" than we
had ever deemed ourselves to have swept beneath the carpet of our "opinion
gettings."
Let me simply say that many, many, many "-isms" do more to contradict
history (in its devilishly impertinent
details) than to synthesize those details. Non-historians LOVE IT when
historians provide mnemonic definitional CRUTCHES and namings of periods of
time and massive changes, and offer for teaching purposes some nominal
"hooks" and grossly over-simplified causal lists to leave students with at
least some idea of what all they have been introduced to in texts and
classrooms.
Let me just say that many, if not most, philosophers consider only a MYOPIC
view of some of the ideas MOST CHERISHED by their disciples... which do not
stand up to ideas of other philosophers, provided one takes into account
only THEIR eclectic of things to consider. Some historians do likewise.
One of the most common SYMPTOMS of a myopic model is a tendency to isolate
certain factors for consideration and reject others that do not fit their
simplistic model. Yet, these same thinkers are quick to go OUTSIDE their
own model and offer (as did Hegel) that their model applies to something
such as Hegel's dialectic as HE applied it to the political views which
SUITED HIM and certain others.
Narrow categories of "determinism" often are found among myopic models.
Geographical determinism is favored by some formal schools of thought and
fields of study, even today. Models of the history of human society can be
preferred among sociologists that are DIFFERENT from those preferred by
political scientists, which may be different from those preferred by many
historians, which may differ between historians from one nation or political
faction than another...
"Tribalism" as a simple little explanation for a plethora of things, is a
cop-out... or so it seems to this dumb old layman. It fits in with economic
determinism, nutritional determinism, capitalistic determinism, liberalistic
determinism...
Oh, and I recall something that dear old professor observed one time, when I
asked him in the privacy of his office where HE stood on something... the
answer still rings in my ears.
(I confess, I must paraphrase. But I feel very sure I have reported his
meaning here correctly.)
"Quite often, Mr. (my last name) I believe that no matter how educated or
how wise we perceive ourselves to become, the positions which make the most
sense to us tend to be those which we perceive to cater to our own private
desires and personal interests."
g |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Keith Hudson |
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 4:55 pm, RAGLANDMYC...@AOL.COM wrote:
Quote: On Feb 4, 12:19?pm, "Keith Hudson" <keithhud...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
This group might be interested in a posting of mine to another group.
Multiculturalism doesn't work
"For 45 years, the Iron Curtain was the central dividing line in
Europe. That line has moved several hundred miles east. It is now the
line separating the peoples of Western Christianity, on the one hand,
from Muslim and Orthodox peoples on the other." Samuel Huntington, New
Perspective Quarterly (Winter 2006)
Samuel Huntington seemed to be astonishingly prescient when his book,
The Clash of Civilizations (1996) was followed only five years later
by the attack of fanatical Muslims on the Twin Towers in New York. He
is also far too good an historian not to admit -- as he does later in
an interview in the NPQ -- that there are other dividing lines between
major cultures.
He doesn't detail these in the rest of his interview but, for the sake
of balance, let me briefly mention the differences in culture between
North and South America, between Europe and Africa, between China and
the West, between Japan and the West -- and many more lesser ones. All
these cultural differences are quite as palpable as that between the
"liberal" West and Islam but not so dangerous because they don't have
such an obviously sharp pivot (the concentrated oil resources of the
Middle East) to spin around.
Astonishingly, however, Huntington doesn't mention one of the starkest
culture differences of them all. In a long interview with the NPQ
devoted almost completely to the West-Islam divide he doesn't even
hint at the clash between Sunnis and Shias -- a thousand year-old
conflict which has never been resolved even though they have often
lived cheek by jowl with one another. In Iraq at the present tim, the
conflict is, if anything, even more murderous between themselves as
that between either of them and their American occupiers. The latest
outrage, involving over 150 deaths in a Baghdad market is yet further
tragic evidence of this.
The fact of all-too-frequent culture clashes is undeniable. But
Huntington's thesis is woefully incomplete. Firstly, he doesn't tie it
down to its essence. This is that we are, instinctively, a tribalistic
species. Living in small groups originally, the tribes have become
cities, regions, or nation-states or, much more recently in the
developed world, precise social classes which, generally, avoid one
another in their free time. We are happy to admit the existence of
other tribes (or social classes), and will indeed trade peacefully
with one another, but most of us are only comfortable when we spend
most of our time consorting with others of almost identical culture.
Huntington simply doesn't make this basic connection which all
evolutionary biologists now take for granted after thousands of times
more observation and research than any single historian is able to do.
Secondly, when trade and normal economic activities break down and
cultures actually go to war -- as the Sunnis and the Shias are
presently doing in Iraq -- it is because vital resources are at the
root of it, and each side wishes to have the status and power to
control them -- in this case, oil royalties. In Saddam Hussein's time
the Sunnis were greatly favoured over the Shias and, second only to
Saddam's immediate Baathist entourage, had power over the Shias.
Becauase of Iraq's new Constitution the position is now totally
reversed and the Sunnis don't like it -- indeed, murdering because of
it, and the Shias are responding in kind.
When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer -- namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
KH:
Quote: When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer --
namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will
result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
Ragland:
Quote: Not much of a solution. Are you arguing for physical
separation i.e. segregation, apartheid?...and genocide as the
solutions to the problems of multi-culturalism?
KH:
I'm not arguing for anything -- only describing Huntington's evasion
of the primary cause of culture clashes in times of economic stress.
Ragland:
Quite honestly, I'd
Quote: rather see mutual annihilation. You seem to be suggesting this for
even the "developed" countries i.e. U.S., Western Europe, etc. Are you
merely observing this phenomenon or do you personally endorse it.
I don't endorse it. It's just what happens.
Ragland:
Quote: One
could take your argument as the U.S. should back one of the ethnic
groups in Iraq to the disadvantage of others.
KH:
Implicitly, Bush has done so. If he'd paid attention to the
knowledgeable people in the State department and past ambassadors
(particularfly Galbraith) he'd have realised that merely by invading
he was giving an almighty boost to the Shias. When the Romans
(successfully) invaded England they had been reconnnoitring the place
for almost a century, trading with our merchants, conferring with the
main power-holders and knew exactly what to do when they arrived.
Ragland:
Quote: Your statement,
"Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient
trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place" is telling because there has
not been ever a "sufficient" trading of power slots and resources
between different cultures when they happen to be living in the same
"place". Which kind of creates a hole in multi-culturalism to begin
with.
KH:
Of course there have been -- many times in many places throughout
history. In Bosnia where Orthodox Serbs and Muslims lived in similar
villages doing similar jobs with similar standards of living they
lived peacefully together for centuries. The same applies to Sunnis
and Shias in many parts of non-urban Iraq where political and economic
disparities were not great.
Keith Hudson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Keith Hudson |
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 5, 4:55 pm, RAGLANDMYC...@AOL.COM wrote:
Quote: On Feb 4, 12:19?pm, "Keith Hudson" <keithhud...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
This group might be interested in a posting of mine to another group.
Multiculturalism doesn't work
"For 45 years, the Iron Curtain was the central dividing line in
Europe. That line has moved several hundred miles east. It is now the
line separating the peoples of Western Christianity, on the one hand,
from Muslim and Orthodox peoples on the other." Samuel Huntington, New
Perspective Quarterly (Winter 2006)
Samuel Huntington seemed to be astonishingly prescient when his book,
The Clash of Civilizations (1996) was followed only five years later
by the attack of fanatical Muslims on the Twin Towers in New York. He
is also far too good an historian not to admit -- as he does later in
an interview in the NPQ -- that there are other dividing lines between
major cultures.
He doesn't detail these in the rest of his interview but, for the sake
of balance, let me briefly mention the differences in culture between
North and South America, between Europe and Africa, between China and
the West, between Japan and the West -- and many more lesser ones. All
these cultural differences are quite as palpable as that between the
"liberal" West and Islam but not so dangerous because they don't have
such an obviously sharp pivot (the concentrated oil resources of the
Middle East) to spin around.
Astonishingly, however, Huntington doesn't mention one of the starkest
culture differences of them all. In a long interview with the NPQ
devoted almost completely to the West-Islam divide he doesn't even
hint at the clash between Sunnis and Shias -- a thousand year-old
conflict which has never been resolved even though they have often
lived cheek by jowl with one another. In Iraq at the present tim, the
conflict is, if anything, even more murderous between themselves as
that between either of them and their American occupiers. The latest
outrage, involving over 150 deaths in a Baghdad market is yet further
tragic evidence of this.
The fact of all-too-frequent culture clashes is undeniable. But
Huntington's thesis is woefully incomplete. Firstly, he doesn't tie it
down to its essence. This is that we are, instinctively, a tribalistic
species. Living in small groups originally, the tribes have become
cities, regions, or nation-states or, much more recently in the
developed world, precise social classes which, generally, avoid one
another in their free time. We are happy to admit the existence of
other tribes (or social classes), and will indeed trade peacefully
with one another, but most of us are only comfortable when we spend
most of our time consorting with others of almost identical culture.
Huntington simply doesn't make this basic connection which all
evolutionary biologists now take for granted after thousands of times
more observation and research than any single historian is able to do.
Secondly, when trade and normal economic activities break down and
cultures actually go to war -- as the Sunnis and the Shias are
presently doing in Iraq -- it is because vital resources are at the
root of it, and each side wishes to have the status and power to
control them -- in this case, oil royalties. In Saddam Hussein's time
the Sunnis were greatly favoured over the Shias and, second only to
Saddam's immediate Baathist entourage, had power over the Shias.
Becauase of Iraq's new Constitution the position is now totally
reversed and the Sunnis don't like it -- indeed, murdering because of
it, and the Shias are responding in kind.
When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer -- namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
KH:
Quote: When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer --
namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will
result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
Ragland:
Quote: Not much of a solution. Are you arguing for physical
separation i.e. segregation, apartheid?...and genocide as the
solutions to the problems of multi-culturalism?
KH:
I'm not arguing for anything -- only describing Huntington's evasion
of the primary cause of culture clashes in times of economic stress.
Ragland:
Quite honestly, I'd
Quote: rather see mutual annihilation. You seem to be suggesting this for
even the "developed" countries i.e. U.S., Western Europe, etc. Are you
merely observing this phenomenon or do you personally endorse it.
I don't endorse it. It's just what happens.
Ragland:
Quote: One
could take your argument as the U.S. should back one of the ethnic
groups in Iraq to the disadvantage of others.
KH:
Implicitly, Bush has done so. If he'd paid attention to the
knowledgeable people in the State department and past ambassadors
(particularfly Galbraith) he'd have realised that merely by invading
he was giving an almighty boost to the Shias. When the Romans
(successfully) invaded England they had been reconnnoitring the place
for almost a century, trading with our merchants, conferring with the
main power-holders and knew exactly what to do when they arrived.
Ragland:
Quote: Your statement,
"Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient
trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place" is telling because there has
not been ever a "sufficient" trading of power slots and resources
between different cultures when they happen to be living in the same
"place". Which kind of creates a hole in multi-culturalism to begin
with.
KH:
Of course there have been -- many times in many places throughout
history. In Bosnia where Orthodox Serbs and Muslims lived in similar
villages doing similar jobs with similar standards of living they
lived peacefully together for centuries. The same applies to Sunnis
and Shias in many parts of non-urban Iraq where political and economic
disparities were not great.
Keith Hudson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:54 am |
|
|
|
|
[moderator's note: This is wandering afield; please bring it
back to "about evolutionary biology" in some sense, or just
let it go. - JAH]
On Feb 6, 10:51�am, "Keith Hudson" <keithhud...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 5, 4:55 pm, RAGLANDMYC...@AOL.COM wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:19?pm, "Keith Hudson" <keithhud...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
This group might be interested in a posting of mine to another group.
Multiculturalism doesn't work
"For 45 years, the Iron Curtain was the central dividing line in
Europe. That line has moved several hundred miles east. It is now the
line separating the peoples of Western Christianity, on the one hand,
from Muslim and Orthodox peoples on the other." Samuel Huntington, New
Perspective Quarterly (Winter 2006)
Samuel Huntington seemed to be astonishingly prescient when his book,
The Clash of Civilizations (1996) was followed only five years later
by the attack of fanatical Muslims on the Twin Towers in New York. He
is also far too good an historian not to admit -- as he does later in
an interview in the NPQ -- that there are other dividing lines between
major cultures.
He doesn't detail these in the rest of his interview but, for the sake
of balance, let me briefly mention the differences in culture between
North and South America, between Europe and Africa, between China and
the West, between Japan and the West -- and many more lesser ones. All
these cultural differences are quite as palpable as that between the
"liberal" West and Islam but not so dangerous because they don't have
such an obviously sharp pivot (the concentrated oil resources of the
Middle East) to spin around.
Astonishingly, however, Huntington doesn't mention one of the starkest
culture differences of them all. In a long interview with the NPQ
devoted almost completely to the West-Islam divide he doesn't even
hint at the clash between Sunnis and Shias -- a thousand year-old
conflict which has never been resolved even though they have often
lived cheek by jowl with one another. In Iraq at the present tim, the
conflict is, if anything, even more murderous between themselves as
that between either of them and their American occupiers. The latest
outrage, involving over 150 deaths in a Baghdad market is yet further
tragic evidence of this.
The fact of all-too-frequent culture clashes is undeniable. But
Huntington's thesis is woefully incomplete. Firstly, he doesn't tie it
down to its essence. This is that we are, instinctively, a tribalistic
species. Living in small groups originally, the tribes have become
cities, regions, or nation-states or, much more recently in the
developed world, precise social classes which, generally, avoid one
another in their free time. We are happy to admit the existence of
other tribes (or social classes), and will indeed trade peacefully
with one another, but most of us are only comfortable when we spend
most of our time consorting with others of almost identical culture.
Huntington simply doesn't make this basic connection which all
evolutionary biologists now take for granted after thousands of times
more observation and research than any single historian is able to do.
Secondly, when trade and normal economic activities break down and
cultures actually go to war -- as the Sunnis and the Shias are
presently doing in Iraq -- it is because vital resources are at the
root of it, and each side wishes to have the status and power to
control them -- in this case, oil royalties. In Saddam Hussein's time
the Sunnis were greatly favoured over the Shias and, second only to
Saddam's immediate Baathist entourage, had power over the Shias.
Becauase of Iraq's new Constitution the position is now totally
reversed and the Sunnis don't like it -- indeed, murdering because of
it, and the Shias are responding in kind.
When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer -- namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
KH:
When culture clashes reach this sort of pass then a certain sort of
retreat to simpler, more "primitive" eras is the only answer --
namely
physical separation or what is pejoratively known "ethnic cleansing".
Otherwise, mutual annihilation, or something close to it, will
result.
Conventional politicians don't like this solution because it reduces
their centralised power. But, within all regions and countries,
whether "developed" or otherwise, when economic conditions becomes
strained enough, cultural re-grouping constantly occurs.
Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place.
Ragland:
Not much of a solution. Are you arguing for physical
separation i.e. segregation, apartheid?...and genocide as the
solutions to the problems of multi-culturalism?
KH:
I'm not arguing for anything -- only describing Huntington's evasion
of the primary cause of culture clashes in times of economic stress.
Ragland:
Quite honestly, I'd
rather see mutual annihilation. You seem to be suggesting this for
even the "developed" countries i.e. U.S., Western Europe, etc. Are you
merely observing this phenomenon or do you personally endorse it.
I don't endorse it. It's just what happens.
Ragland:
One
could take your argument as the U.S. should back one of the ethnic
groups in Iraq to the disadvantage of others.
KH:
Implicitly, Bush has done so. If he'd paid attention to the
knowledgeable people in the State department and past ambassadors
(particularfly Galbraith) he'd have realised that merely by invading
he was giving an almighty boost to the Shias. When the Romans
(successfully) invaded England they had been reconnnoitring the place
for almost a century, trading with our merchants, conferring with the
main power-holders and knew exactly what to do when they arrived.
Ragland:
Your statement,
"Multiculturism simply doesn't work unless there is sufficient
trading
of power slots and resources between different cultures when they
happen to be living in the same place" is telling because there has
not been ever a "sufficient" trading of power slots and resources
between different cultures when they happen to be living in the same
"place". Which kind of creates a hole in multi-culturalism to begin
with.
KH:
Of course there have been -- many times in many places throughout
history. In Bosnia where Orthodox Serbs and Muslims lived in similar
villages doing similar jobs with similar standards of living they
lived peacefully together for centuries. The same applies to Sunnis
and Shias in many parts of non-urban Iraq where political and economic
disparities were not great.
Keith Hudson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ragland:
One
could take your argument as the U.S. should back one of the ethnic
groups in Iraq to the disadvantage of others.
KH:
Implicitly, Bush has done so. If he'd paid attention to the
knowledgeable people in the State department and past ambassadors
(particularfly Galbraith) he'd have realised that merely by invading
he was giving an almighty boost to the Shias. When the Romans
(successfully) invaded England they had been reconnnoitring the place
for almost a century, trading with our merchants, conferring with the
main power-holders and knew exactly what to do when they arrived.
Ragland: This is the age of fast and violent decisions without
preparation. The U.S. government is the superpower cowboy who will do
what it wants. Of course, the U.S. government and military should have
never invaded Iraq IMO. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Gil Lawton |
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Keith Hudson" <keithhudson@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eqaio9$2rvi$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote:
KH:
Of course there have been -- many times in many places throughout
history. In Bosnia where Orthodox Serbs and Muslims lived in similar
villages doing similar jobs with similar standards of living they
lived peacefully together for centuries. The same applies to Sunnis
and Shias in many parts of non-urban Iraq where political and economic
disparities were not great.
Keith Hudson
T. Harry Williams, one of the foremost scholars on the so-called "U. S.
Civil War," (and much other history) spent many words, sentences,
paragraphs, pages, chapters... examining and weighing many, many, many
factors which converged into what some people like to think of
simplistically as "the causes" of that war. Williams pointed out that in
all great violent conflicts there is what we today might refer to as a
'tilting point." Williams referred to it as a moment when a "line is drawn"
onto each side of which one may lean in his interpretation of things
important to him or her. Once that line becomes sufficiently clear in the
mind of many, there is a phenomenon of polarization which ensues, not always
along geographical lines, not always along cultural lines, not always along
societal lines, not always along the lines of a single issue, not always
along lines on a map, not always along political lines, not always along
racial lines, not always along economic lines, not always along class lines,
not always along moralistic lines... but a polarization in which many
individuals for any one reason or any slightly more reasons to lean the one
way exist than for leaning the other way. Sometime, at first, there is
ambivalence of feelings, mixed feelings, uncertainty... but, the
polarization continues. Some who are ambivalent get drawn one way or the
other because of the influence of peers, or by strong feelings of relatives
or business associates, or some fealty to some organization or school of
thought. Gradually, or quickly sometimes, there is a growing crowd around
each "flag pole" as it were, and rhetoric begins to coalesce around "our
convictions," "our courage," "our willingness to stand up for what is
right," and, eventually, "our willingness to die, if necessary," for what is
"right." Also, the rhetoric feeds on news an rumors about alleged insults
spoken by "those others," about their coldness, their cowardliness, their
blindness or indifference to this or that "principle." Commitment grows
stronger, even if it is iffy at first, as rhetoric about "us" and "them"
becomes more bi-polar. All news at each pole is increasingly complimentary
to "us" and increasingly derogatory about "them."
The wood is stacked, the kindling is heaped around it, the fuel is poured
over it and... whether it is a spark that ignites the fuel, or
a boldly thrust preemptive torch -- to get them before they get us -- and a
century later some naive self-appointed experts can be found
sit down and decide what was "the cause."
Such self-appointed Monday morning quarterbacks pride themselves in their
wisdom sometimes.
They KNOW what they are talking about. And if you don't believe it... ask
them.
g |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:32 am
|
|