Log in

18 September 2007 @ 10:51 pm
I Told You So: Article on Intercultural Coexistence.  
The Zeitgeist likes me BUNCHES today.

My previous post, on September 10: On Coexistence.

Article, World Science, September 13: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors.

I would post the article itself, but the format doesn't copy very prettily. It contains, at any rate, pretty much the same theory I came up with a while ago: namely, that different cultural groups can coexist well in areas that provide either strong boundaries between their individual subregions, or a shared set of ground rules. The Lex Romana of the Roman empire is a classic example of the latter. The US "melting-pot", during the times and occasions when it was actually successful, also used this principle: the "base attractor" of "mainstream" American culture was able to assimilate new immigrants (albeit, in many cases, with a certain period of "hazing the newbies" which strikes me as rather similar to a fraternity initiation ritual.)

The current "multiculturalism", on the other hand, is a muddled mess because it rejects both segregation and assimilation, trying to achieve some in-between compromise which, in the end, pleases no one. It reminds me of that old story about the two guys with the donkey who tried to please everyone, and ended up only making fools of themselves.

This, by the way, is one reason why I do not identify as "White Nationalist". Although I do believe in Freedom of Association, and sympathize with those who want to preserve their culture, I also cannot ignore the empirical evidence that successful mixed social units do exist, at all levels of scale. There are mixed marriages that are stable and happy. There are mixed families whose children grow up healthy, strong, and intellectually competent. There are communities where people of different ethnic groups live together in harmony. There are cosmopolitan agorae where people from all over the world come together to peacefully exchange goods and ideas. And, insofar as these associations are actually successful, they have as much right to exist as anything else.

One the other hand, many people are also positively assortative; they prefer the company of their own kind. And that, of course, is perfectly fine too. Chacun a son gout.

Both sides, multiculturalists and separatists, have become morally polarized, each claiming that their vision of an ideal society is absolutely right; when, ironically, both sides are actually advocating for diversity: diversity of different kinds and on different levels. A preference for mixture is still a preference; a mixture is a particular kind of thing. Human beings cannot live without any preferences at all; such a state of being may be possible in Nirvana, but not on Earth.
Current Mood: The Zeitgeist LIKES me!
righnasidhe on September 19th, 2007 09:35 am (UTC)
Not to detract from ethnically mixed places, but all of this seems to confuse coexisting sans violence with coexisting well. It's materialistic, binary logic. And besides, doesn't co-existing have more to do with the properties of those groups than the properties of the space the groups occupy? If they speak different languages but are both muslim, or if they have different physical characteristics but have a long, unique history together, that makes things different than if they come from different continents and are thrown together abruptly, no?

I don't see how preference really comes in because it is only scoffed at or banned when it conflicts in any way with what the oligarchy wants. Therefore simple cultural preference(not necessarily racial, but it can be any ideal) is not respected or tolerated today. There is a difference between having a society with different ethnic groups and advocating multiculturalism as something necessarily good. The latter crowd is a novelty in terms of history and they are divided between the business interests that want the entire world, and the racists/moralists who regurgitate corporate propaganda and want at least every last white nation on earth, and their hateful eyes have also been directed toward the Middle East in recent years. The simple fact is that multiculturalist are not advocating for diversity, much as they might like to think they are.
Etheleona, Preoperative Posthumaninsert_nanotech on September 20th, 2007 12:47 am (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right. The social characteristics of the mixed region are equally important as the physical ones. That's something I didn't get into in my earlier, brief post. The World Science article specifies what those conditions must be: either firmly-defined subdivisions or a common, overarching set of general rules. In the case of language, this would be either an official language or lingua franca. The Roman Empire, as a whole, actually combined both. In the cosmopolitan city of Rome, one "did as the Romans do"; while the provinces were quite frankly provincial.

I pointed out the physical conditions first mainly because, I have noticed, the Leftist accounts, motivated by an underlying social determinism, tend to exaggerate social influences at the expense of physical ones such as biology and geography. Of course, the two are really interconnected, since environments are largely shaped by people. Fences are things that people build.

Yes, you are quite right about the rejection of preference. Since I am an individualist (as well as Cladist) I am also concerned about the devaluing of individual preferences in favor of herd-mentality, by both the Right and Left. I think there are interconnections between these levels, which is why I believe that libertarians and WN's can be allies in certain regards.

As for multiculturalism and diversity: What I have seen from reading the various "lefty blogs" (debunkingwhite, feminist, anarchist, etc) is that people on this side of the spectrum do support diversity -- but only in one direction. That is, they think Black Nationalism is fine but not White Nationalism; they believe Native American tribes should have their own independent space but not Aryan communities; that "people of color" should take pride in their own cultures, histories and identities but not Whites. (The illogic of this is shown clearly by the fact that if other groups separate, Whites will be left separate by default.)

The rationale behind this is that Whites have no need for cultural freedom or pride, because they already possess "privilege" granted by the present system. And, unfortunately, there is a core of truth to this; imperialism and slavery did happen, and had severely deleterious effects upon the world "peoples of color" which still affect the current world. The fact is that life in the current state-capitalist Western nations sucks for minorities even more than it does for Whites, in many respects. This is something that, IMO, must not be ignored. The Leftist response to this, however, is typical knee-jerk moralism: Oppression Is Bad, therefore people must be punished for being bad, therefore current Whites must be blamed and punished for the actions of previous generations. If such policies are actually pursued, in my opinion, they will lead only to further cycles of dysfunction.