The above is from one of the immigration debates, and it falls under the rubric of "a topic worth exploring". Much of the debate here in America over illegal immigration, in Europe over immigration, in Australia, etc, revolves around culture.

With that in mind, I have two questions.

1) Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?

2) How do we measure a culture's "inferiority" or "superiority"?

Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?
Sure, as long as said nations are not democracies or ban immigration, in which case you don't have to concern yourself with defending Der Kultur. For those who like to mix it up, we can start by putting up street signs. (For Mexicans use: "I'M AGAINST THIEVING, LAZY MEXICANS LANE".) After all, such measures only target bad people, people trying to undermine our culture. Any non-jihadi offended by such measures is just overreacting, yeesh.

How do we measure a culture's "inferiority" or "superiority"?
With the only measuring sticks that matter: power and wealth, if we're honest about it. Let's ask Bill O'Reilly. I've heard he's looking out for you, but I think he meant to say he was looking out for white guys:

QUOTE(ThinkProgress)

O'REILLY: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

I love bashing Bill O'reilly as much as the next guy, but your quote is absolutely out of context.

"White, christian, male power structure" is an exaggerated characterization of the New York times perception of America (supposed preception, that is). This is highlighted by the "Which you and I are a part of," suggesting that Bill is further poking fun at the New York Times by commenting that he himself is somehow "in" on the conspiracy. Humor is soooo not funny when I explain it.

My initial reaction is no, simply under the premise that "protecting" culture results in controlling how people express their values/traditions/etc., either by forcing them to comply or insisiting they hide away.

The question highlights its own unanswerability. There are no objective standards for inferior or superior. This claim is particulary true when looking at mere cultural phenomina. Christmas trees aren't "better" than a menorah, etc.

However, I'm sure the claim will emerge that such things as "Freedom of Press" and "Freedom of Religion" are a method of defining superior morals. Sadly, even these, while presumedly better for citizens, are not, by nature of themselves, greater than their antithesis.

Maybe right-wing humor is different, but as I understand sarcasm you don't say stuff you don't mean with a straight face, or fail to cue the audience with a smirk or some sign. Has the NYT used "white, Christian, male power structure" or something similar in an editorial lately?

1) Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?

Culture? Hmmm, perhaps to celebrate, but what do you mean "defend"- there are nuances here- do you mean something relatively benign, like,oh,Thanksgiving as a holiday to educate and promote American heritage- or other such non- intrusive type stuff- sure- defend away.

It is also difficult, in the American culture- to define what the Ameirican culture even is- if it as Bill O'Rielly suggests- a white, christian male dominated patriarchy? OR something quite different? A culture is what a group of poeple decide it is,usually without thinking too much about it- it seems natural, that the only time they feel it is not- is when they are not in it?

With some place like Russia- there are very, very clear lines of what dfferent culture's are, and there are about a gazzillion old women that will inform you very,very clearly about what thier culture IS NOT

2) How do we measure a culture's "inferiority" or "superiority"?
[/quote]

I guess only by history- will it survive or not?I think some cultures are worth wiping out, or, allowing to die- definately the middle eastern culture going away would be a great boon to man- thier medievil way of thinking is the #1 source of anti-progress in the world. Not the race- the culture- thier culture, I would say, if we balanced the equation of "what is the best culture" by personal freedom- then the European culture is way ahead of the world- by shear breeding the other cultures out of existance, while resisting any type of assimilation f any parts of other cultures- I would say middle eastern culture (NOT te same as other islamic countries, please note- I am talking about the patriarchal society of the middle east- quite different from, say, Indonesia) I would say that middle eastern culture, for it's sheer ability to overcome reason with breeding- is the superior culture.
However- thier thinking and culture makes for massive population growth- and the forces of reason have a shrinking population growth- it very well may be, within 30 years time or less, we DO go to war against Islam- for real, with the thought of wiping out an implaccable enemy bent on world domination.


In American culture- you can't really nail it down the same way- too many grey areas, too much flexibility, to many other cultures that have been assimilated and vice versa.

Hispanic culture in America IS American culture- I don't get the seperation? Go out to eat,listen to the radio, check a newspaper in the realty section- Hispanic culture and American culture are one and the same- you can't take it out as a monolithic bloc anymore than you could seperate the Euro influence on our constitution, simply because those founding fathers WANTED to seperate themselves, but really couldn't in the end.

So, in the end- I think the word "culture" in America means as little as "conservative" and "liberal" in rhetoric- it means exactly zip to anyone but talking heads.

Perhaps, I thought the cue was "Which you and I are a part of." If your right, I agree the comments are frightening.

1) Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?

If a culture is under "assault" (by which I mean an actual attempt by outside forces to change it against its will, without a very strong justification) then it would seem reasonable for that culture to defend its way of life. (By a "very strong justification" I mean a situation in which an activity of the culture is doing an appreciable amount of harm and must be stopped. The classic example is the British forbidding the burning of widows in India. Although much could be said against the British Empire, this particular activity on its part was justified.)

If a culture is under direct attack in this way, it has the right to defy those who would destroy it. When possible, peaceful methods are to be prefered. In the most extreme case, when the culture is under attack in such a way that its population is suffering actual harm, a certain amount of force may be necessary (the smaller the better.)

Let's pick a real example to show what I mean. Those persons who rioted against the infamous cartoons about Mohammed, or those who threatened people because of them, must be treated by the law like any other violent criminals. Peaceful forms of protest must, of course, be tolerated. However, they must not be allowed to influence the culture under attack against its will. (In this case, the culture is justified in defending its tradition of free expression.)

The question of "erosion" is much more problematical. Cultures change for many reasons, and this might be seen as "erosion." This is a natural process -- as "natural" as anything about human behavior can be, anyway -- and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to oppose it.

As a simple example, it seems possible, if not certain, that many years from now the degree of religious faith in the United States might decline to the level currently seen in much of Europe. I offer no opinion as to whether this would be "good" or "bad." However, in either case, it would be a mistake for any official attempt to be made to encourage or discourage this trend. (Individuals, of course, would be free to argue peacefully either way.)

A more controversial example might be the possibility (by no means certain) that, a century or two from now, Spanish might be the majority language of the United States. Language is certainly an important part of a culture, and one would not wish to see any language fade away entirely. However, if such a shift in langauge is happening strictly because of inherent demographic changes, and not because of any direct attack, it would be a mistake to use force to oppose it. One must certainly be free to preserve one's language, of course; but if the society is changing in such a way that it is no longer dominant, one must accept this.

2) How do we measure a culture's "inferiority" or "superiority"?

By the amount of harm it causes to humans and other animals capable of a high degree of suffering. By "suffering" I include not only physical and emotional pain, but also death (because it removes all future experiences) and the loss of freedom. History shows us that societies with liberal (in the broadest sense of the word), secular, representative forms of government do the least amount of harm to their own people, and to others. (The question is not so clear when it comes to other animals, but I suspect that they are also better off under such societies.) It also teaches us that prosperous, technological, scientific societies do a better job of this, for the most part, than poor, non-technological, supernaturalist societies. One need only consider such factors as freedom of expression, the emancipation of women, animal welfare, and so on.

The good news is, in the very long run, human culture, in general, has a pretty decent track record of getting better.

Wealth is actually a pretty good measure except for the instances where the wealth is mostly due to natural resources. There is a strong positive correlation between a respect for civil liberties and property rights and wealth. If people are leaving one nation and going to another there is a good possibility they are fleeing an inferior culture. Cultural inferiority is the reason the colonies of Catholic Spain have suffered compared to the colonies of Protestant England. Cultural inferiority is why the neocons idealistic policies fail. You can't force democracy on a culture which lacks respect for women, those of other faiths and individual liberty in general.



Highly improbable just saw a stat today stating 78% of second generation hispanics and 97% of third generation hispanics prefer conversing in English. English is rapidly becoming the worldwide language of business.

I think before you answer any of these questions you have to ask how do you define a culture. Ask 100 people to define american/western culture or whatever and you'll probably get 100 different answers depending on the persons experience, age, gender, class background.

With regards to the questions set out

1. I don't see how it is possible to defend a culture, culture by its very nature is an idea and a very maleable idea. Again this brings me back to my first point about how you define a culture. In western culture if we define our culture through our pride in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equality etc then these principles are enshrined in our laws and so long as these laws are enforced then the culture will be defended. If we define culture through other means such as the clothes we wear, music we listen to etc, "erosion" of culture is an inaccurate way to put it, culture is a constantly evolving concept there is no way to control or defend it (although you can defend certain principles) language in particular is impossible to control as you cannot control pronunciation, meaning of words (80 years ago if you used the words gay or cool in the context you used them today people would wonder what the hell you were on about) if you look at the evolution of English as a language you can clearly see that it has survived 1000 years of change, evolution and has taken on new words from a variety of langauges and cultures

2. Personally I do not believe in cultural inferiorirty or superiority there are just cultures, you cannot say that one way is better than the other, because different cultures have different ways of thinking on the basic level. For example we view western women as free and equal however someone from say the middle east would say that we are not respecting women, however we view some of their practices as barbaric and a historical throwback they would say the same about us. At the end of the day cultural inferiority or superiority is entirely subjective and a completely a matter of opinion of the individual.

1) Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?

These are kind of difficult questions. After all, "defending the culture" was the reason Medieval Churches burned heretics at the stake. To quote Saint Abelard, in the trial against Peter Abelard, "Which shall I call the more intolerable in these words...the blasphemy or the arrogance? Does he not deservedly provoke every man's hand against him, whose hand is raised against every man?"

The first question can be interpreted to mean something along the lines of "Ideas are dangerous things." Ideas do change societies, in some cases radically. Some changes are good, others bad. Ideas created America and changed it through the years, and every time our culture has changed with it, I think.

Going further, what defines a culture exactly? It could be argued that the American south has a different culture than the American north (I rather think it does myself). We are a society of immigrants, have always been, and with every large influx of people our society has changed incrimentally. I suppose, in a nutshell, culture could be defined as the value system of the inhabitants. If that is the case, then the written laws of a country already defend that culture as long as they remain.

2) How do we measure a culture's "inferiority" or "superiority"?

Well, I liked Victoria's answer to this one. But I also agree with Lesly's response, though she made it flippantly. Both responses are connected. Features of culture are causally connected to the stage of economic development. Small, seemingly random questions like how that society perceives concepts of time and chronology, the degree of commitment to education, emancipation of women, the place of children in society, whether there exists a strict or loose caste system, whether a society is "open" or "closed", the role of mythology and superstition, social mobility, even the degree of interpersonal honesty are all connected to economic development. It isn't an accident that in the typical impoverished society, religion is not a matter of choice. So societies that have "superior" cultures and respect concepts like human rights do so because their economic development enables them to do so.

Edited to add: Just thinking further...There are some cultural propensities that I think are more beneficial that exist in less developed societies more than the direction we are going in prosperous ones. The high personal regard for family is the primary one. We, as a society, have gone away from personal connections and the result is not good....the near deification of celebrities, broken families, ect. It isn't an accident that we are going that way as family connections become less crucial towards survival. But the lack of personal connections does lead to an empty lonely life for many people. I guess the real measure of a culture's superiority is the overall state of the population at large...are they generally happy? Countries that people are trying to get in to have it over countries that people are trying to get out of.

1) Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?

They do, but they are probably being foolhardy. History shows us that cultures are mutating continually. Borders shift, mass movements occur, disease and famine claim masses and politics constantly politics. In England 600 years ago all the cultural elite spoke french or latin. In Continental North America 400 years ago almost everyone spoke languages that do not exist anymore. Things change - people should be used to it.

But they are not, they cling to old comforts of what they consider their "culture" as you do to a security blanket as a child. And understandably so the human brain struggles to cope with mass environmental changes and we have created a world where we are faced ny constant change so we therefore seek what securities we can.

In order to preserve the state/nation/culture then the following steps are probably considered reasonable; representation of those "cultures" within governing bodies, the defence of the land occupied by those "cultures" from foreign military and political agression and reasonable limits on immigration. I am guessing the last of these was where you were shooting for with the question


2) How do we measure a culture's "inferiority" or "superiority"?

Eek... I could fall back on my ice cream flavour metaphor here but somehow I don't think you would appreciate that. Ultimately it is very hard to objectively measure the "quality" of the culture and i think you have to question the motivations of any one doing so - it does not mean they are a bad person but a sense of their reasons for it does not seem like an unreasonable consideration. There are aspects of almost any culture that I think most people would find appealing - swiss trains running on time for instance..... there are many such examples, but I think that assessing as to inferior or superior is incredibly subjective. I'd argue it is therefore almost impossible to "measure" in a scientific way.

And I just wish that answer did not feel so, so, so... politically correct.

Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?
As rights go "cultural defense" is pretty low on the totem poll.

Nations and cultures are two very different things so it's best not to confuse the two.

A culture has a right to "defend" its cultural values sure. As long as this defense doesn't come at the expense of someones else's rights and needs.

Build museums, hold parties, pass out pamphlets, have a ball!

Just don't impose on anyone else without good reason.

Culture is such a broad thing that it often obscures reasonable consideration of the real issues at work. After all what things that people do can't be called "culture"?

Here's a prime example of things getting out of hand.

This is a positively horrid thing to say because in inflates some problematic issue in a part of the world to a wholesale devaluation of their culture

They're was a time when the same was said of Russian culture. A long time now that I think of it.

Heck fifty years ago American culture, especially in the South, was one of unrestrained terrorism towards innocent people. My own city was a place that saw dozens of terrorist bombings as well as lynching, mutilation, arbitrary imprisonment, and other injustices with the full backing of the governmental authorities in the area.

Forty year ago we saw JFK, MLK, and Robert Kennedy drop one after the other. MLK and others marched through a Chicago suburb in '66 only to be stoned and threatened with death.

I agree with other poster on the second question, especially concerning human rights. By the way how many years did it take to charge Padilla?

Really? Nation States are normally quoted as having a homogenous or near homogenous culture. It is, after all, quite easy to have multiple nations inside the same legal entity of a country; the UK being a prime example. I think the world culture as it is used in this debate is a very vague term and gets used very differently by different ends of the discussion. Sadly.

Yes, it is also quite easy to have multiple cultures inside the same legal entity of a nation, the US being a prime example

See what I mean?

Edited to Add:
England is actually a pretty good example too now that I think of it.

Okay Turnea- what is to be proud of in the middle eastern culture? I am not talking race here- I am talking King Foud's (sp) culture? The beheadings or is it the stonings that you would be horrified if it ended?

Middle eastern culture is horrible, there is almost nothing, if anything redeemable in the entire culture.

CR


If the culture was that deplorable it would not exist as long as middle eastern culture. However, I could tell you some redeemable qualities, but would you agree??

Three things that come to mind immediately resilience, devotion, and structure.

And let me ask you CR, what matter how some one is killed?? I mean we are one of the few countries that still allow children to receive the death penalty. Not that I'm trying to shift this from middle eastern culture, just trying to get some perspective here. I may care that they are killing girls for being porn stars... but I don't care whether it is being hit by a huge stone, electrocuted, or a $ .10 bullet in the head.

SCOTUS overruled the death penalty for juveniles two years ago. They took a lot of heat from conservatives for it and I disagreed with the ruling. On the other hand I think treating schizophrenics and the mentally insane to make sure they are fit to stand execution is heinous.

I agree with you about loping heads off. That's a meaningless cultural value that has nothing to do with the ultimate retribution of justice. Does it matter whether a man's neck is broken, if he bleeds to death from a firing squad or if he's pumped full of poison when the intent is the same? What is despicable about Saudi Arabia's criminal justice system is that they don't have due process, or their due process is based on religious doctrine, which is worth as much as my spit as far as I'm concerned.

Actually- it is not the killing so much as the 'WHY" of it.

I have a daughter. Maybe you do too. I would do anything in my power to keep my daughter from being raised in that culture. At least here, she has a fighting chance.

Catch my drift?

I know it is not "PC", and I have been called a "liberal" here by many, but I am not afraid to say what my heart and observations of Saudi-area middle eastern countries about that culture.

I have been in the homes of middle eastern poeple that lived in Germany, but still lived by thier saudi ways. They were very hospitable to me and all- but the deference in tone by the women was WAYY to oppressive for me to bring my daughter up anywere NEAR that culture.

I can't really say that for any other culture I have ran into in the world, in other third world countries included.

I would only be running away from poverty in those countries, in some ways, in many ways, they are more free than America- if you are talking personal freedoms vs business related freedoms (something we don't normally even seperate in the US- )

but I would not run from Indonesian culture, or just about any other- I would embrace it, enjoy it- that is why I have travelled so much.

But middle eastern culture as practised by the Iran-Sinai pennisula types- regardless of actual race- and excluding the Jewish culture- which can't be argued is very, very different than the Saudi type culture - I would run very fast to raise my family a few centuries away from it!

And to me- that is why the western culture and the culture that is breeding the Al-quaida radicalism of martydom, are so naturally enemies. Every man, who is raising a family, realizes the threat to the happiness of his future generations that middle eastern culture broadcasts.

It puts real fear into a man facing his own mortality an trying to do right by his children that scares me to have my great grand daughter or even grand daughter have to face.

Here, she has a legal right to be president, and can rise to greatness in any western country, and most third world countries- the culture may hold her back, she will have to overcome this anywhere- but she will not be relegated to a life support system for a uterous to breed men like in middle eastern countries!

How can you measure culture to know what to defend?

Here in Denmark there are plenty of people who eat Arabic food, so many in fact that falafal and humus have become staples of the the Danish diet. In other words, they've been adopted into the Danish culture. Then you get a bunch of people who don't like the Arabic influence and start talking about defending Danish culture by banning stuff like falafal. The thing is, most Danes travel out into the world and bring back stuff like foods, spices, music and other cultural by choice.

Surely culture is fluid. If I look back at the culture of my country a hundred years ago, its almost alien to the culture I live in today and I feel no great connection to it. I don't think a nation needs to concern itself with 'culture' though I dothink people have the right to act to preserve aspects of their culture they wish to preserve.


We don't. We either like, or agree with it or not.

1.
It appears I spoke too soon when I said that comment devalues a culture.

I should have pointed out it devalues a whole host of cultures:
Arab, Persian, Jewish, Kurdish, Druze, Assyrian, Turkish, Berber, Somali, Azeri

I'm sure I left a few out but that I think is enough.

Culture is such a wide term that you've left yourself no defense here. I mean we've been enjoying Persian literature since the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (Okay I was forced to study it in school, but Arabian Nights was actually interesting)

Arabs laid the foundation for our mathematics so bad mouthing that around a math major can be dangerous.

You probably forgot to consider the Jews as a Middle Eastern culture but if you want I can clue you in on their work.

Saladin (a Kurd) was instrumental in ending the crusades.

Didn't Orhan Pamuk just will a Nobel recently?

...that and I love Baklava.

On the whole culture is a set of interesting if unimportant customs and its time we stop painting if with a broad brush.

I mean Stalin was the greatest mass murderer in history and Putin isn't a paragon of virtue himself.

Glass houses and such.

Sorry but I can't let this pass.

The Arabs 'inherited' their science from the Greeks after they invaded Greek lands. Their math was based on those few fragments that survived the fires of Alexandria.

And Saladin did not end the Crusades, not by a long chalk. They were fighting centuries after he died, and Saladin was not the gentle voiced man of popular fiction either. He was a ruthless general who sold hundreds of thousands of innocent christians into slavery.

And just what do these things have to do with culture anyway?

Almost every one inherited from some one moif and the Greeks didn't invent mathematics either. Technically we can trace that algebra and most other fundamental math to the Babylonians, Middle Eastern again.

However I was referring to "The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing"


Arab civilization served as a meeting point for east AND west and it would be misleading to say "they took their science from the Greeks".

They inherited sources from Greeks, Indians, and Chinese literature and added more than a little themselves.

I was imprecise with Saladin and was well aware of later crusades but would point out they are generally consider minor compared to the first three, the Second and third were characterized by his success at uniting fractious Arab leadership and ending conflict the way they usually ended back then, with a decisive victory for one side.

I am further aware that like many European leaders he sold slaves, that was a problem around the world at the time which makes it no less deplorable but hardly cultural.

As to what this has to do with culture I fail to see why mathematics and military and political history are not products of culture as much as anything else.

That is, of course, the problem in debating it everything is "culture"

Turnea- we are talking in modern ages, though, the thread starter didn't specify- I believe it was implied as the intermix of cultures today- hence- the hispanic influence on US culture, and if there is something to defend.

There will be individual greats in any society/culture- I guess we have the Nazis to thank for Einstien by your reasoning? - I mean- he was originated out of that CULTURE- if not form of goverment.

And we ARE talking in the modern context- Jewish middle eastern culture is quite different than the basic crescent of geography that is Saudi, Lebonese, Iraqi, Iran, Jordon etc throughout this region- sure, there are micro-cultures within those cultures that DO NOT have the same characteristics- you can point to them in just about any country- like, oh, the Amish in Pennsylvania? -

But in the modern context, for the last one hundred years, those DOMINANT cultures of the region I have said are incredibly oppressive, and I wouldn't raise my family there, not on a bet.

Turnea- let me as you- would you want YOUR daughter raised in the cultures I am speaking about? I think you have enough of a handle on which ones I am talking about to keep YOUR daughter away from them- don't ya think?

Would you feel comfortable if YOUR daughter married into a traditional Saudi family? Or would you worry about her decision for the rest of her life- and if she is ever able to undo the choice of her own violition?

Or how about your son- you think that is a good culture to raise YOUR son in? Do you want him to have the values of that culture, and what it brings into your family?

Again, there are a number of places in this world I'd hate to be.

I'm not eager to go to North Korea, but South Korea with a similar cultural heritage is a great place from what I hear.

I'm not too willing to ship out to China, but Taiwan?

Saudi Arabia, heck no.

UAE, I haven't the cash.

Turkey, where can I get a ticket?

Whenever I have children there are a few things about the dominant American culture I'll have them studiously avoid.

There are more problem in current Middle Eastern culture as a whole than in the west... but I'd rather be in Turkey than France or Switzerland the way things are now too.

Things change, Persian women didn't use to have the fear the mullahs before the revolution and maybe a time will come when they won't again.

Just as America gave up the banner of white supremacy we must give leeway for others to exorcise their own demons.

Edited to Add:
It has occurred to me that many are limiting their consideration to what we may call "low" culture as opposed to the "high" culture of arts and sciences.

Still most middle eastern people are not cultural sympathetic to beheading and torture anymore than we are.

Turnea- there is NO culture in this world BESIDES the Saudi -type culture that I wouldn't accept, and integrate myself into- you named nations- NOT culture. I would live in Saudi- in an American Enclave- for a high paying job- but integrate myself into that culture- NO WAY.

YOu named nations- I named culture- you know as well as I that have beef wih my own culture- but I am no idealist- I have seen what it is like with my own eyes- fine if they want to live in that culture- but no thanks to me and my future generations- it is very, very oppressive and unhealthy for the human spirit and freedom.

The only comparison I can make in America is the religious right- they have SOOO much in common with Saudi traditional culture- but the real difference is- you can survive in the community if you go away from the religious right you can still live in that city and, you know, live and all

Cultures don't always conform to borders, don't ya think?

That's because the "Saudi-type culture" is defined by its negative aspects as far as you're concern. You don't see the reputation for learning, hospitality, and care for family you see burqas.


The problem is that this is not Arab culture. It's central Asian invention.

You see beheading but in all of the middle east only Saudi Arabia still practices it and it's simply their idea of capital punishment which much of the world thinks the US is backwards for.

The middle east has problems now but only a few decades ago we were right there with them, you can't take a snapshot of many different cultures at one point in time and make a blanket judgment.

Africa has dozens of cultures, many still have problems with human rights including female genital mutilation and violence against ethnic minorities.

That doens't mean African culture is worthless, it simply has some changes to make just like everyone else.

There is no "middle eastern" culture anyway. When a region has problems with human rights if does no good to lump it all together and cry culture, there are other forces at work.

Well its very simple really. All those things are the actions of individuals...

Culture is all those things people share as an aspect of their identity, food, music, religion, a common perception of how to act in public... stuff like that.

There is nothing middle easter about 'The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing' except its author. What the book contains... is universal.

deng:

You wrote:

"Cultural inferiority is the reason the colonies of Catholic Spain have suffered compared to the colonies of Protestant England."

What "colonies" are you talking about? When it comes to the Americas, the difference is that the European Protestant extirpated, or largely so, the indigenous people, whereas the European Catholic might have seized the reins of power via conquest and murder, but there never quite was that same zeal for total extirpation and so the Spanish Catholics were always in the minority in their "colonies" in the Americas and so they never were really able to change the culture. Which brings us to the Philippines, since just as with the Spanish Catholics before us, while WASP America too tried to remake the Philippines in its image, any success on its part was and is superficial at best. They are still the Ilocanos, the Tagalogs, the Bicolanos, the Cebuanos, etc., that they were long ago, well, not exactly so, since long before the Spanish Catholics or American Protestants came over and after the Malays had done so, the Chinese came over, and you won't find a family of any influence in the Philippines that can't trace their heritage to some rather prominent ancestor who was at one time fresh off the boat from China.

Which brings us to the Chinese. They came up with paper and fireworks and so maybe it has nothing to do with just which faith the Europeans were and are, but the state of the existing culture at time of conquest and then through domination. Such probably explains Hong Kong in relation to not only Manila, but Calcutta as well [or maybe you could explain the difference between Calcutta and Hong Kong in terms of Spanish Catholic versus English Protestantism].

Have we covered all of the colonies yet? Oh, and just so you know, that "famous" "Protestant work ethic" isn't any such thing, I mean, wasn't it that one sect of Catholic monks who came up with ora et labora [prayer and work] long before anyone had thoughts of "reformation"? And it wasn't that the natives were restless or lazy, no, just like when Homer plays the team mascot, it's the tropics, and so, conductor, can we please tone it down to a cool tropical beat for Dancing Homer...or as some say, only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noon day sun.

I think you can. Cultures change. Is the culture of America the same as it was when plantation owners used slaves? Is it better, worse, or just a life style choice....neither better nor worse for renouncing slavery? The last seems to be the line of reasoning on the subject of the Middle East and parts of Africa. There are beneficial and nonbeneficial ways to act. I might understand why women are treated as property throughout most of the Middle Eastern society, and I might understand why there is an underlying caste system throughout...but that doesn't make it simply another, equally legitimate world view of things.

You mentioned the UAE earlier. It is indeed a rich society, as is Qatar. I can tell you that they make use of foreign people in their workforce as we would make use of animals...Actually a bit worse than that, more like garbage. Usually these are people who come over from parts of Asia and Africa. They basically relinquish their rights as humans the minute they walk over the border. Often, they work for weeks or months without pay, and when (if) they are paid it is a tiny sum, but they take the chance because there are no opportunities in their country and IF they are lucky enough to be paid they can send the pittance home. In Saudi they take people's passports and those workers become virtual hostages. I wouldn't advise visiting Qatar or the UAE or Kuwait (remember what happened to them right before the first Gulf war? Mostly foreign workers, the affluent escaped) if you are Asian or black, unless you wear a suit and tie (or BDUs) at all times. Of course, you are a man so it won't be quite as bad for you as it was for my female friends (Asian) who lived there. And yes, this is culture...an ingrained social way of thinking throughout of the kind westerners wouldn't tolerate because we do not believe in caste systems (that isn't to say we live in a classless society, but you'll know the difference in a nanosecond if you visit one of these places and interact with the population off the golden path of tourist hotels).



No, but it does make it a much less desirable way of life.



There are lots of forces at work. Those forces influence the culture, just as our culture and the culture of Europe and Asia has changed, why wouldn't others? Or are Japan and Germany exactly as they were in 1938? Cultures are linked to the conditions in which they are formed.

Not exactly...

Here's a question that better illustrates my point:

Is the culture of America the same as when Martin Luther King was hit by a brick marching through Cicero in '66? When he was shot an killed in '68 less than forty years ago?

Lest we forget George Wallace won 12.9% of the popular vote that year even as a third party candidate against the winner Nixon who was working the Southern Strategy like there was no tomorrow. In the early seventies Mr. Segregation was the seventh most admired man in America, even beat the Pope

The answer is more yes than no.

The blanket judgment I decry is calling a culture "worthless" or even inferior.

Worse that ours currently? Sure.

Fundamentally Inferior? No.

As the Iranian revolution or the '70s in America showed cultures can change rather quickly in either direction.


Yes, I see.

I just realized in the last post that we are limiting our consideration to "low" culture. When I think of culture I'm more apt to name Schubert and Mozart.

Fair enough, only there's nothing particularly distressing about Middle Eastern food, music, identity or even the way most choose to act in public.

I'm saying don't over dramatize the situation and say the culture's worthless.

Okay- I will call you on it then Turnea- yes, the south was very bad to blacks- but still- would you rather have your daughter, a black girl, raised in the south of the 50s or the Saudi Arabia of today- NOT in an enclave- but an active member of that culture- living in it, and living with it's mores and norms?

I can tell you right off hand, I would have rather risked my chances as a black man dating a white woman in the south in the 50s than be a woman in Saudi Arabia!

I agree Saudi Arabia is worse that '50 Birmingham, but I'd say that Syria and Jordan were likely about on par.

I mean we had our own version of "honor killings" that lasted quite a while as the family of Emitt Till can attest.


Wait...
actually dating a white woman?

I think I'd take those odds.

Quality of life might be a bit rougher... but life expectancy....

Edited to Add:
..and it wasn't just the south. Cicero is a suburb of Chicago.

It was a bit of a trick question I led you into there Turnea to prove a point. Even in Texas in the early 60s and 70s- civil rights HAD NOT readed the area I was growing up in- there were places that a black man and white woman could live out thier lives in realitive security- as long as they lived in "those" areas- typically, the white woman had to live in the black nieghborhood.

In Saudi Arabia- there are lots of restrictions that will get you killed, no matter where you are in that country, and frequently- in that culture- no matter what country you live in- I don't think I have to point out honor killing trials here in America and Europe.

The point is this- of all the great tapestry of cultures on this planet that have something to offer- THAT culture has the least to offer today. Maybe it will grow up before it forces the world to destroy it, or in turn destroys the world, and we are either instinct as a species, or back to cave man times. AT this point- unless the ME culture grows up, and accepts the world, and in turn is accepted- we are headed to some kind of REAL global showdown.

I really think it will be Europe that actually reacts the most harshly and first though- because something the middle eastern culture does will trigger THEIR survival reflexes.

Now you're breaking your own rule.

I thought we were talking about the "dominant" culture of a region.

In the dominant culture of America a black man dating a white woman in the south had darn good reason to fear for his life.

Like I said, SA is about the bottom of the barrel, but the comparison to Syria and Jordan isn't so bad.

Lebanon actually has the sixties south beat by a long shot.


So all this talk about the Middle East culture (as if there was just one) is simply short-sighted and reactionary.

1) Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?

First we should at least try to define what "culture" essentially is. In essence we could start by defining culture as a product of values and norms that have been passed on from generation to generation. Culture is not static, but it changes gradually throughout time, it adapts itself as social conditions themselves evolve. Many people today still have an idea about culture as it was developed in 18th - 19th century Europe, which means that still today many identify culture with "civilization" and contrast it with "nature".

In essence this could be seen as cultural arrogance. We, citizens of western nations, in general see ourselves as cultural superior, because of our civilized way of living which stresses the importance of freedom and democracy. We see ourselves as the epitome of civilization and we tend to view all the other cultures in the world, who are not completely following our way of life, as less civilized and therefore cultural inferior. This view should be done away with. It has lead too many times to misguided, offensive and arrogant statements like Islamic culture is "backward" and African cultures are in general "barbaric". Truth is there are no superior or inferior cultures, there is just culture: a contemporary set of ideals, norms and values, etiquettes etc which differ per continent, country or region and which is in constant state of flux.

You cannot defend something like culture. It is in a constant state of flux and adapts itself to changing circumstances. I always view cultural conservatives as Don Quixotes; they are fighting something that is unwinnable, trying to change something which is unchangable. You can probably try to guide cultural changes in a certain directions, but in the end culture changes itself without guidance.

So ... do nations have a right to defend their culture against erosion or assault? I my opinion you can try and you could certainly make an argument for it, but in the end it won't matter. It is what I said before: fighting against cultural changes is like fighting windmills. Because of globalization, the influx of immigrants of different parts of the world, culture is already changing and adapting itself. Trying to fight against this development is senseless.

2) How do we measure a culture's "inferiority" or "superiority"?
We cannot and we should not for reasons I explained above.

Lebanon's culture breeds wars. I don't think you can get much worse than that. It is the ultimate example of where multiculture leads.




Renger

I see one problem with your argument. If as you say we define culture as a product of values and norms, and there is no superior or inferior culture, just a lot of differences, then there is no difference between values either. Thus, by your argument all the civil rights and equality which we in the west profess to believe in, mean nothing. Essentially what your saying is slavery is just as valid as female emancipation. That child abuse has the same right to exist as charity.
I can't agree with that.

Western moral philosophy is grounded in the golden rule which states that one should do as one wishes to be done by. Treat others with the respect one expects in return.

It may be that in the big scheme of things, we maggots on the rotting carcass of life might not amount to a moments pause of the great celetial clock, but for as long as we move along this stream of consciousness, then we do so each by a moral compass which promotes our survival in the long run. Anything that enables understanding and enhances ones chances of survival then, is superior.

Let me see if I can help you:

Not ripping out a girls clitoris so that she is more faithful to her future husband is BETTER than ripping it out. Not different, but better. Superior even.

Not forcing women to dress like ninjas or beekeepers under penalty of death is BETTER than forcing them to dress like ninjas or beekeepers under penalty of death. Not different, but better. Superior even.

Not rioting and killing when someone draws a cartoon of an ancient pedophile is BETTER than rioting and killing when someone draws a cartoon of an ancient pedophile. Not different, but better. Superior even.

I can keep going. The fact of the matter is, some cultures ARE superior. If there was no more Middle Eastern culture by some magical act tomorrow, the world would see a time of unprecedented peace. That, in my opinion IS better.

There is no no Middle Eastern culture now, for goodness sakes.

At least say "Arab" or "Islamic" culture and accurately describe what you're bad-mouthing.

There is a distinct difference between multiculturalism and having multiple cultures living in a single country.

The "-ism" is a philosophy of mutual respect which if followed leads to peace, when abandoned however it is sorely missed.

Lebanon was ill-used to put it lightly. Without the constant meddling from Egypt, Syria, Israel, Iran, the USSR, the PLO and on and on...

It may well have still been the Switzerland of the Middle East as it was multiculture and all for some time.

The same (concerning stability that is) could be said of Iran now that I think of it though the UK was more in the mix there (the US of course meddled as well). The cold war had a dreadful effect on the stability of the region (and in Africa).

Renger has got it right, cultures are constantly in flux, it hasn't been long since I could name a similar list as Looms about the United States.

The value of our respect for human rights comes not to lord it over others as a measure of cultural superiority since I dare say it is not quite culturally rooted though I hope some day it will be.

Its value is more fragile than culture, philosophical perhaps.

We're talking cultures here, not philosophy. Essentially there is no difference between the two definitions your peddling. When multiple cultures live together they have a choice, end multi culturalism by assimilating into each other to form an over riding sense of cultural identity or remain insular, leading sooner or later to conflict. Where ever Islam is concerned, the latter is inevitable. Lebanon, an old multicultural society and one you appear to believe is a nice place to live, demonstrates all to clearly what happens when assimilation by Muslims into their host culture is ignored. Wars break out.

Other good examples of the various stages of this inexorable trend include the Balkans, Turkey, England and Holland.




Its an 'ism'. Thats enough. It is flawed because it seeks to impose a political persoective onto people, regardless of their will. Mutual respect, or even choice, doesn't enter into it. Ever. Multiculture deserves its place in the sewer of 'isms' along side Catholicism, Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, Islamism, &tc, &tc, &tc.

I can't believe any one in this day and age can still believe in 'isms'

What about Liberalism, capitalism, and secularism?

All philosophy revolves around "-isms" and as human beings they are unavoidable.

Multiculturalism is somewhat new, certainly in the West where white supremacy was for a long time the credo.

...but I see no reason for the US or the UK to worry about its future. Cultures can remain distinct, in contact, and in peace so long as advocates of "cultural superiority" are held at bay.

It has always been the opposition to multiculturalism that has threatened peace. If Turkey would change its policies towards the Kurds to one of multiculturalism for instance, it would be a far more peaceful place.

I do not see it as a problem. I belief indeed that in essence you cannot divide different values and norms in terms of right or wrong / superior or inferior / civilized or "barbaric" (although I do acknowledge that it seems an unescapable human tendency to do so). Concepts like norms and values do not have subjective connotations by themselves. People give these concepts emotional coloration, based on their own personal moral compass, which is of course a product of their own cultural background and time. For us, people who have been brought up in western culture, concepts like personal freedom, democracy, emancipation and equality are very meaningfull and important. For many in the West they are worth fighting for and believe they are the epitome of civilization. But in essence these concepts are not more valid than other concepts we perhaps find disagreement with. One could argue that slavery is horrible and inhumane, but in another cultures it could be one of the pillars on which society rests. Same thing with equality. In the modern western world equality is highly cherished and seen as the basic component of a stable and peacefull society, but in another cultural setting hierarchy is perhaps the most preferable social structure. It all depends on cultural context and social conditions whether certain values and norms have the right to exist. Ideas and ways of life that are incomprehensible and wrong in our culture, might be normal and acceptable in other cultures, and the other way around. The whole question whether some cultures (with their distinct set of norms and values) are superior to other is in the eye of the beholder and can never be answered satisfactorily.

P.S. I have the feeling that I do not understand your last paragraph completely. It seems you are tying the "golden rule" with chances of survival. I do not understand this connection. Perhaps I am wrong, please correct me if that is the case.

Editted to add:

Wow, I am a slow writer it seems. When I was still struggling to responding to Moif, Looms already responded.



Please understand that I am not saying that I agree with Islamic cultures. I was just focussing on concepts like culture, norms and values from a more philosophical, objective point of view. I was trying to proove that it is arrogant and incorrect (although understandable) to view other cultures (with their distinct set of norms and values) as inferior. I believe one should avoid such terms and labels. Although I understand and for a large part agree what you are trying to say here (I do not agree with your last two sentences), I find it unfortunate that you apparently didn't understand what I was trying to say.

Yeah? What about them?


Not all philosophy revolves around "isms". There is no ism in the golden rule for example. Merely a philosophy of treating others as you would be treated yourself. 'Isms' are ideologies and in that they seperate themselves from philosophy by attempting to fabricate rules and dogma. Philosophy never killed any one. Ideology has killed hundreds of millions.


Bah! It was multiculture that destroyed Rome, destroyed Byzantium. Destroyed all the Greek kingdoms one after another. Tolerating outsiders was (is) seen as a strength because it brought short term benefits, but in the long run internal divisions are like damp in concrete. No matter how strong, eventually it fractures. Multiculture may be a new 'buzz word' in the short memory of western politics, but its essentially as old as houses ...and its always been the means by which Islam (itself intolerant) has spread.


Its true, the UK and USA will no doubt survive, as states. But we are debating culture here, Not nationality. What will it mean to be British in the next few decades? Will Britain be a land of peace and harmony or will it become a fractured nation ridden with the same conflicts which today characterize Lebanon?


Yeah.
'If'.

Keep dreaming. Turkey is an Islamic state. Don't be fooled by its brief flirt with secularism. Deep at heart the Turks know full well their nation is only theirs because the Greeks were stupid enough to tolerate their presence until the day the Turks were numerous enough to take over. It was not 'opposition to multiculturalism that threatened the peace' of Byzantium Turnea. The Byzantines were very tolerant. So tolerant in fact that they were replaced. The Turks won't be making the same mistake any time soon.

Multiculture is division. Pure and simple. Without unity and without shared values, then a nation has no culture (Swedish national policy by the way. The Swedes have even renounnced the notion of a national history now) and thus no identity. Cultural superiority becomes a matter of who can out breed who. The most fertile inherit the land.





I disagree. Since human beings have a fundamental instinct to survive, then it seems to me that any culture which assists this, is superior to a culture which hinders it.

What your suggesting strikes me as a philosophical opt out that allows people to refuse to take responsibility for their culture. If one cannot compare the advantages and disadvantages of ones culture with disparity then sure, no morality is superior and its easier to say all culture is equal. But Human Beings are not made like that. One has a loyalty to one's self and a responsibility to ones children to work towards and believe in the future. To ignore the future, to argue moral equality in the face of self destructive patterns of behaviour, is the act of a moral coward. (I'm not refering to any one in particular)


I was not refering to any one particular culture or philosophy with that particuar paragraph. Any culture that enables understanding and enhances ones chances of survival is superior. No matter which culture it is.

1) Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?
A right, yes. That doesn't mean it's always, or even generally, a good idea.

2) How do we measure a culture's "inferiority" or "superiority"?
To the extent a cultural practice harms innocents, the culture that practice is part of is inferior.

The golden rule is ostensibly supported by several philosophical justifications.

The most common are the religious supporters.

The others fall neatly under Humanism or Utilitarianism. Both are widely recognized philosophies despite being dreaded "-isms."


Culture had nothing to do with it. Byzantium was from beginning to end a Christian state with no place for Muslim turks in its leadership. It was darn close to a theocracy.

It was Byzantium being chipped away on all sides, particularly by the other Christian state's crusaders they kept sending to help, the Fourth Crusade was a fratricidal affair.

Turks were often hired as mercenaries, but I wouldn't call that an multicultural society or tolerance. that was hiring armed men who happened to be from a different culture. Mercenaries are apt to turn on you no matter who they are.


..and that would be pragmatism.

In any case Western Europe is way behind everyone but Japan in terms of culture.

Needless to say I disagree.

I think you'll find it is the other way around turnea. These 'isms' are supported by the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule justifies itself.


Right, which is why the Byzantines used to expel them once their wars were finished. The downfall of Byzantine followed the decision to allow the Turks to stay because in doing so the emporer was able to reduce the power of his nobility. In other words, by creating a multicultural society he reaped a short term gain but ultimately sowed the seed for the destruction of Byzantinum.


No, its common sense. Pragmatism indicates a temporary state and there is nothing temporary about applying the Golden Rule.
You can put 'ism' behind anything and lay a claim to it, but somethings are simply just fundamental to human nature. Altruism is a common trait amongst primates.


A page or so back you wrote......and yet here you are refering to 'Western Europe' as if it were one homogenous culture. Whats the difference between these two generalizations turnea?

You've exposed your cultural bias.

Why?


Could you elaborate?

I've not studied Byzantium closely, but I have read on the history of Turkic peoples ever since their entry from Central Asia into Anatolia and beyond and it was the Turks military victories from outside the Byzantine Empire that, coupled with the internal fighting among the Christians, brought the Empire down.


I didn't mean to give that impression, and I never said "European culture." I'm well aware there is no one "Western European" culture. Unlike those who seem to actually believe there is a "Middle Eastern" culture.

I merely meant that most Western European nations have declining birth rates and if survival were the true criteria that would put them behind.

I'd say that if we were ranking cultural superiority Western Europe would come out far better using human rights as the criteria.

I do not fully understand why you come to this conclusion. My view does not automatically lead to refusal for taking responsibility for ones own culture. People are a product of their cultural environment that they were brought up in. They think within a specific cultural paradigm from which they cannot escape. Almost everybody will stand up for their own culture with its distinct set of norms and values when it is being critized or threathened. This is a logical, but purely emotional reaction. But that doesn't change the fact that in essence there is no fundamental reason why other cultures, other morals, norms and values should be measured in terms of right or wrong / superior or inferior / civilized or uncivilized. Judging other cultures by ones own standards is a form cultural arrogance and derives from a false sense of cultural superiority.

I am also not advocating that you cannot compare the advantages or disadvantages of your own culture with other cultures. Of course this is possible, but realize that your judgement is being coloured by your own cultural background and therefore will be subjective. In all probability you will not reach a honest and satisfying conclusion.

Again in essence every culture, every set of morals has its own specific validation. There is no universal right or wrong, and therefore there is no universal superiority and inferiority between cultures. But this conclusion does not mean that in daily life people do not make these qualifications. Protecting and praising ones own culture is indeed a human characteristic. I myself also do not escape this tendency. I fully acknowledge that my attitude towards culture is split between a rational approach versus an emotional approach. But I also do not see it as incompatible.


I find this an intriguing position. There could be a connection between survival and culture. But before I will explore this a bit further, I first want to ask you a question: what cultural criteria do you suppose will enhance the chances for survival?

The Golden Rule does not require further explanation. I believe in it for example, but I am not a humanist, or a pragmatist. I do not subscribe to any isms what so ever. I pick and choose my way through life according to what makes sense to me.


Byzantium was constantly under pressure from the east and resisted invasion for centuries. Their final downfall came about with the practice of allowing Turks into the empire as mercenaries, and leaving them there once the wars were finished. The internal conflicts of the Greeks were a major contributing factor to this since it was a means of controlling internal factions that led directly to the decision to keep Turkish mercenaries in Byzantine territory. Whether or not Byzantium could have survived in the long run is dubious anyway, but the fact is it fell because of internal divisions and the presence of Turks within Byzantium to take advantage of the empires weakness.

This example is poigniant to Western Europe where a great many influencial groups and individuals within the EU have long campaigned for the inclusion of Turkey as a member state. The idea is that in doing so, Europe will grow and the Turks will be assimilated into European culture. What history demonstrates however is that Turkish culture does not doubt itself and Turks today, despite their affluence, still produce as many children as possible. Turkish imigrants into Western Europe, even after three and four generations still produce upwards of four to five children per mother, and they have children earlier than native Europeans.

European culture by comparison is shrinking as the number of native Europeans is reduced due to the cost of living in Western Europe, the lack of space and the unreasonable demands of Europeans upon their surroundings. It may be that we have better human rights but essentially these rights are dependent on our being the majority within our countries. Once the Muslim populations reach 51% of any given area (and sometimes even before this) they begin to change the laws to suit their cultural and religious requirements. Our democratic rule of law allows them to do this and is incapable of preventing the abolishment of democacy in favour of sharia law once 51% of the population is Muslim.

If the development follows historical patterns then wars will break out before this happens though as either the Europeans attack the Muslims in pre-emptive self defence or the surviving Europeans are exterminated as happened with the various minorities on the Anatolian peninsula and is ongoing else where in the Muslim world.


Fair enough.


Yes, indeed. This is one my personal favourite questions these days and its why I keep asking about altruism. Which is the stronger culture? The tolerant or the intolerant? Is there not an argument for prudence in exersizing tolerance?




Renger, you've lost me now. You appear to be debating with yourself.

Also, you appear to believe that people are unable to look upon their own culture with anything but extreme prejudice, that a human being can only be culturally arrogant because they are the product of their own culture. And yet here you are disproving your own argument. If you were correct in your analysis, then you would not be able to write what you just did.

I believe that cultures can be superior to each other and that this is how some cultures are able to destroy others without the use of physical violence, but at the same time, I do not believe any one culture can be describe as an 'uber culture'. Its like a game of paper, rock, scissors. Cultures have strengths and weaknesses and whilst secularism has proven its strengths in Europe over catholicism, it may find itself eclipsed by islamism.

Culture may be superior only on the eye of the beholder, but in any case, culture itself only exists within the eye of the beholder! There is no such thing as culture unless people believe in it. Once people stop believeing in it, it ceases to exist and is replaced by a culture people actually do believe in. It seems to me that this is why catholicsm died out in Europe and why islamism is so potent. People see the fervor of belief held by muslims and begin to doubt their own belief's as a consequence. Its the same with any human institution, democracy or the law for example. When people stop believing in the law, society breaks down. The law only exists because people choose to follow it. Law is only superior to chaos because people believe it is, just as law only exists because people say it does.


Honesty.

I believe that honesty is the most potent force humanity has and all trouble stems essentially from people being dishonest due to greed. Taking up the Muslims as an example I believe they are a threat because they are greedy (though they are not alone in that). Having five children in modern Europe is simple greed and if our politicians were honest about such things, then they'd say so. This planet cannot afford unchecked population growth, and western Europe certainly can't. As a Dutchman you know full well how crowded Europe is becoming. We cannot sustain this population if we hope to retain our civilisation in the long run.

We need to be honest about things. We need to create an environment where people do not hide behind politically correct excuses but say what they mean and where having an opinion is not demonized as is the case today. Calling some one a racist because you disagree with them for example, is dishonest.

Dishonesty breeds contempt. People stop believing in a society that is dishonest. Look at how the World views the USA now. Americans are considered a pack of liars, no matter what good they've done. The faith in the USA has been undermined by lies. It may be a cliché, but we need more honest politicians. Democracy itself only works in the long run if people believe in it, and people will only vote if they feel they uderstand what their voting for. Once they stop believing they stop voting and thats the end of that.

Enough waffling. Got to go fetch my daughter from day care...

Perhaps in all honesty maybe I am debating myself a little bit, but that's because I realise that my position in regard to the concept of "culture" is seemingly paradoxical. (although I must also confess that sometimes I am struggling to put my Dutch thoughts in coherent English, which could also be the reason why you, and probably everybody else, lost me ) I realise that there is an objective (philosofical / scientific) and subjective (emotional) way of looking at this concept. I will try to break it done in two statements.

1. I am a product of my own culture. I was born and raised within a certain cultural and moral context. I view different cultures, norms and values through coloured glasses so to speak. Personally, when comparing my own culture with other cultures I would prefer the one I am part of, although I realise it is not without its flaws. I belief many people across the world follow this type of reasoning. Being proud of one's culture (even if it has got many flaws) is (apparently) a human characteristic.

2. Concepts like culture should not be viewed in terms of good and evil, right and wrong, superior and inferior. These qualifications are subjective connotations; products of one's own personal moral compass. In essence every culture, norm and value has its own validation, has its own right of existence, its own specific purpose.

I believe that is important to take account of both these statements when one is discussing issues like culture. I know that it is not always easy, sometimes paradoxical, but it is essenial if you want to have honest debate about subjects of this nature.



But do you not agree, that people tend to look at there own and other cultures in a highly subjective way? People are products of their own cultural environment. They behave within a specific cultural paradigm. I am fully aware that I do too, but at the same time, through my study in history, I have learned to realize this and have learned to approach different cultures from a more objective point of view. I have learned to view them in their own specific social context, making sure the emotional coloration is kept at a minimum.



I agree with your first statement, but do not accept the second one. The existence of culture does not only depend on the believe people have in it. Culture just is. It is always there, with or without someone believing in it. Social interaction is the basic component of culture. Where there is interaction, there is culture.

The rest of your post I will reply to later Moif, first I have got to make some dinner.

1) Do nations and/or cultures have a right to defend their cultures against erosion or assault? What domestic measures are reasonable in this matter?

What makes a nation a nation is the culture--common language, a