Platt/ dmb/ Ron/ all: I find it interesting that I read these two posts and find that they are not always antagonistic. In fact they seem to raise a question as they work to define a previously unseen shape, a question.
What are the limits of multi-culturalism inside a single society? (at what point does it weaken a society, at what point does it strengthen one? --in MOQ terms) thanks--mel -------------------- Platt said: Multiculturism is based on the postmodern idea that all cultures are morally equal, i.e, that they are neither "good nor bad," "right or wrong." This idea is challenged by the MOQ. "A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not " So a democratic republic that protects individual rights to free speech, private property, trial by jury, etc. is superior to a Stalinist regime that requires individuals to support the dictates of a communist state under penalty of imprisonment or death. I make no apology for my bias towards a culture of democracy as opposed to a culture of totalitarianism. -------------------- dmb said: > I think Ron's right. He said, "multiculturalism is a more dynamic position than adhereing to old mono cultural ethics and prejudices". We can use the MOQ's terms to make a case for its superiority but I think it can just as well be justified in terms of common sense. The world has become too small for tribalism. Shedding one's provincial attitudes has become a matter of decency and self-respect, no? The acceptance of multiculturalism demonstrates a certain intellectual capacity to compare and analyze the values of others, especially with those who are unlike ourselves. It indicates the ability to look at things from a broader perspective, in the context of history and geography and cultural evolution. And isn't it simply a demographic fact that the opposition to multiculturalism is strongly correlated to the least educated, narrowest, most provincial minds? Here this attitude finds expression in the Republican's aggressive patriotism and religiosity. These are the "real" Amer > icans that Sarah Palin loves so well.As if that weren't enough, when multiculturalism is understood in the context of our own history it can easily be seen as part of centuries-long effort to overcome a particularly lethal evil. Western history is totally saturated with religious intolerance. Virtually every war for the last 1000 years was essentially the assertion of one set of social level values over another. Christianity over Islam and Paganism, Catholicism over Protestantism, etc., etc.. To this you can add colonialism, slavery, two thousand years of anti-semitism, Hitler's genocide, the American genocide against the Indians, the "white man's burden" and the Ku Klux Klan. That's the historical context in which multiculturalism should be understood. It goes hand in hand with democracy and the equality of human rights. This is not just some Rockwellian sentiment about human dignity, its about keeping the body-count down. Yes, the intellectually guided society is more mora > l because it is more dynamic and open and free but its also more moral because bigotry has been a cruel, cruel bitch for long, long time. One can see how tribalism served an evolutionary purpose and I'm sure that various levels of cohesion are still necessary but we can also see how it gets out of hand, usually in the form of reactionary movements like fascism and fundamentalism. These are essentially anti-intellectual movements. They are muscular re-assertions of social level values, a push back against modernity, against things like multiculturalism. The "free market" conservatives like to imagine that their internationalism is only about trade and commerce and that it is culturally neutral. The "undeveloped" nations will just naturally want to be more Western, at least economically, and that Kentucky Fried Chicken on the corner represents culturally neutral "progress", right? No, modernity has changed the values a bit, but we're still exporting Western values at gun point > . Same as it ever was. Capitalism is the new Crusade. Probably goes back to stone knives but the world is too small and crowded now. Tribalism makes even less sense than pretended neutrality. Classical Liberalism is based on enlightenment economics, Lockean and Hobbsian contract theorists who calculate economic activity in terms of self-interested, rational, amoral individuals. It is a version of that amoral scientific objectivity that desiccates science and technology. That's what were exporting with pretended neutrality, so they're all getting a side dish of dis-Qualified rationality with their seven herbs and spices. > _________________________________________________________________ > Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. > http://windowslive.com/oneline/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywher e_122008 > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
