- 20 Jan 2010 03:58
#13297849
[youtube]iGYCMXfBrPc[/youtube]
When two cultures meet, two situations can occur - they either stay apart or they do not. When they fail to do so, it is for two reasons, and only two reasons: either one culture dominates the other - the Cajun culture no longer exists as a recognizable entity in the United States, because a much more homogeneous American culture has replaced it. This was doable in a large part due to free travel from other areas of the region into it. The same has happened to many other regions, throughout the world - Cornwall, for example, has been totally dominated by the English. Konigsberg is today wholly Russian. The Hebrew man has replaced the Arab. Whether this happens naturally, or due to genocide is of no concern (from a historical perspective) - it has happened.
Alternatively, the meeting of two cultures results in a creation of a new hybrid culture. When the Spanish arrived in Mexico, they forever destroyed the Aztec way of life - but in turn, the cultural intermixing in this region created a new, Latin culture, which is neither Spanish nor Indian.
In both these cases, however, a culture was destroyed. While some Indian communities do survive, the vast majority of them have been eradicated. We have lost, forever, their language, their music, their architecture and their art.
The same can continue to occur. An erosion of identity is the inevitable result of a policy of a united world government. Those in poorer regions will flood the rich regions - and in these cosmopolitan areas, mixing will occur, destroying, either because of supplanting or merging, the cultures that once existed.
This, of course, is assuming that the integration occurs, and does so peacefully. More likely is the situation that occurs when one culture does not want to mix, does not want to be destroyed. This situation emerges when one identity is not easily removed. We think of, in this situation, the multi-national states of Russia, of Yugoslavia, of Spain, of Pakistan, Iraq, or Afghanistan. We think of Canada. Today, and as time goes by, we think of France. What is the result here? Conflict. The Chechens, the Dagestani, the Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Basques and those who see themselves as Catalan. Pashtuns or Kurds. The Kashmir. The Timorans. Quebecois. When two cultures meet, and they refuse to mix, the only result is conflict. When two cultures have met, historically, the result has always been conflict.
There are two ways to destroy ethnic conflict - one, the one western liberals seem to endorse, is the creation of one human identity. This is the "melting pot". You endorse one race, one religion, one language. This is the only way a unified world would ever work as these cultural identities that refuse to compromise would cause wars, and these wars would destroy the unified global community. A uniform brown mass with the same language, the same religion, and the same culture. A very boring world.
The alternative is a different approach - that of a salad. Together, they are greater than the whole, but you can still see the constituent parts that make it up. This is the approach of pan-nationalist. It protects diversity on a global scale, by the creation of the nation-state. Islam and Arabic practices - protected in their own countries. They may practice their own laws, as they wish. Giving every identity their own community, where they are ruled by those they know, and identify with, strengthens these bonds, and preserves the great cultural diversity that make the Earth the world we know today - one of great differences in thought, worship, and art.
Nationalism is not a tool of bigotry or imperialism, but a tool to preserve the great wonders of human diversity, the greatest wonder of the world. Multiculturalism is little more than genocide on the very idea of human diversity.
So - let the Swiss ban minarets. Let the French fine the burqha. But let the Catholic Church remain outside of Saudi Arabia. Protect the very thing that makes us human - our great diversity.
When two cultures meet, two situations can occur - they either stay apart or they do not. When they fail to do so, it is for two reasons, and only two reasons: either one culture dominates the other - the Cajun culture no longer exists as a recognizable entity in the United States, because a much more homogeneous American culture has replaced it. This was doable in a large part due to free travel from other areas of the region into it. The same has happened to many other regions, throughout the world - Cornwall, for example, has been totally dominated by the English. Konigsberg is today wholly Russian. The Hebrew man has replaced the Arab. Whether this happens naturally, or due to genocide is of no concern (from a historical perspective) - it has happened.
Alternatively, the meeting of two cultures results in a creation of a new hybrid culture. When the Spanish arrived in Mexico, they forever destroyed the Aztec way of life - but in turn, the cultural intermixing in this region created a new, Latin culture, which is neither Spanish nor Indian.
In both these cases, however, a culture was destroyed. While some Indian communities do survive, the vast majority of them have been eradicated. We have lost, forever, their language, their music, their architecture and their art.
The same can continue to occur. An erosion of identity is the inevitable result of a policy of a united world government. Those in poorer regions will flood the rich regions - and in these cosmopolitan areas, mixing will occur, destroying, either because of supplanting or merging, the cultures that once existed.
This, of course, is assuming that the integration occurs, and does so peacefully. More likely is the situation that occurs when one culture does not want to mix, does not want to be destroyed. This situation emerges when one identity is not easily removed. We think of, in this situation, the multi-national states of Russia, of Yugoslavia, of Spain, of Pakistan, Iraq, or Afghanistan. We think of Canada. Today, and as time goes by, we think of France. What is the result here? Conflict. The Chechens, the Dagestani, the Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Basques and those who see themselves as Catalan. Pashtuns or Kurds. The Kashmir. The Timorans. Quebecois. When two cultures meet, and they refuse to mix, the only result is conflict. When two cultures have met, historically, the result has always been conflict.
There are two ways to destroy ethnic conflict - one, the one western liberals seem to endorse, is the creation of one human identity. This is the "melting pot". You endorse one race, one religion, one language. This is the only way a unified world would ever work as these cultural identities that refuse to compromise would cause wars, and these wars would destroy the unified global community. A uniform brown mass with the same language, the same religion, and the same culture. A very boring world.
The alternative is a different approach - that of a salad. Together, they are greater than the whole, but you can still see the constituent parts that make it up. This is the approach of pan-nationalist. It protects diversity on a global scale, by the creation of the nation-state. Islam and Arabic practices - protected in their own countries. They may practice their own laws, as they wish. Giving every identity their own community, where they are ruled by those they know, and identify with, strengthens these bonds, and preserves the great cultural diversity that make the Earth the world we know today - one of great differences in thought, worship, and art.
Nationalism is not a tool of bigotry or imperialism, but a tool to preserve the great wonders of human diversity, the greatest wonder of the world. Multiculturalism is little more than genocide on the very idea of human diversity.
So - let the Swiss ban minarets. Let the French fine the burqha. But let the Catholic Church remain outside of Saudi Arabia. Protect the very thing that makes us human - our great diversity.