[Vit Beeyer (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Umami

There's nothing wrong with creating a new ethos from previous cultures - that's how cultures evolve.

Cultures evolve, that is true. But the evolution of a culture does not result in a brand new culture. "Successful" multiculturalism is nothing more than being able to find cultures living in general peace across a contextually small geographic region. It's not about integrating Mexican immigrant culture with the culture of Americans (i.e. Californians, Texans, Arizonans, etc.), it's about being able to co-exist. That is a crucial distinction.

Thoughts?

edit: It should be noted that I personally can't stand the term multiculturalism and I'd prefer we be able to discuss this issue without us calling it a nonsensical word.

[Treghc]

So cultures are incapable of social evolution?

[Vit Beeyer (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Treghc

So cultures are incapable of social evolution?

Define social evolution.

[Treghc]

Well, we'd have to define the characteristics that make up culture. Art? Cuisine? Common thought? Geographical region? A culmination of a couple? A culmination of all?

What I'm asking is how do we know a culture is maintained as a culture.
Can a culture not shift or change over time?
^(I guess I would use that to define social evolution. I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar in this field, but I am very interested in the discussion, so forgive me if I use terms somewhat inaccurately or loosely).

If not (and this is what I'm really trying to get at), what is the defining point when one culture becomes another?

Now, if a culture can, then how do we know if the absorption or even hostile takeover of a culture isn't part of its evolution?

I suppose I would argue that a culture can leave its mark in another, even if that culture is effectively losing it's social prowess. Living in the pacific northwest, there are traces of Native American culture throughout many aspects of this area. Many people here still hold large respect for land and water and, in particular, salmon. Is that still a Native American aspect of culture, or should we consider a culture prevalent to those who inhabit the pacific northwest?

Lastly, are we to say that multiculturalism requires the sustaining of current cultures without change to coexist together? If so, why does the preservation of cultures matter?

[Vit Beeyer (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Treghc

Well, we'd have to define the characteristics that make up culture. Art? Cuisine? Common thought? Geographical region? A culmination of a couple? A culmination of all?

We don't need to define each and every characteristic that makes up a culture. That is a useless thing to spend time doing. Measuring those characteristics causes one to lose sight of the discussion. We aren't describing various cultures, we're discussing the proper role of culture within geopolitical relations.

What I'm asking is how do we know a culture is maintained as a culture.
Can a culture not shift or change over time?
^(I guess I would use that to define social evolution. I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar in this field, but I am very interested in the discussion, so forgive me if I use terms somewhat inaccurately or loosely).

Yes, cultures change over time. Cultures are the culmination of individuals interacting with each other over time until each singular action and reaction has mutated and changed and viola, we have informal cultural norms and rules that guide individual behavior. It's going to be just about impossible to accurately quantify this.

Now, if a culture can, then how do we know if the absorption or even hostile takeover of a culture isn't part of its evolution?

With culture the evolution should come from within. It should be an endogenous reaction. Taco bell represents an evolution of mexican culture, but would you call it a part of Mexican culture?

I suppose I would argue that a culture can leave its mark in another, even if that culture is effectively losing it's social prowess. Living in the pacific northwest, there are traces of Native American culture throughout many aspects of this area. Many people here still hold large respect for land and water and, in particular, salmon. Is that still a Native American aspect of culture, or should we consider a culture prevalent to those who inhabit the pacific northwest?

Prevalent to those in the pacific northwest. That prevalence is seen in the nuances not in the general ethos.

Lastly, are we to say that multiculturalism requires the sustaining of current cultures without change to coexist together? If so, why does the preservation of cultures matter?

The preservation of culture matters because culture is the underlying influence upon societies institutions of governance. Destroying one's culture is like destroying the roots of a tree.

[DayoftheGreek]

I feel like that story about the ship is relevant here. If you have a ship, named the USS PBNation, and the rudder is replaced, it it still the USS PBN. Then the sail is replaced, it's still the USS PBN. Eventually if the entire ship is made of non-original parts, is it still the PBN? Over how long a period does it have to be rebuilt for this to remain true?

If you take a bunch of Mexicans and move them into a poor US city, they keep a lot of their culture, but the food changes, the buildings change, their clothes change, the language changes, their mannerisms change as they interact with locals. Is it still Mexican culture? How about when they have kids, and their kids have never seen the original Mexican culture? What about their kid's kids? Is it possible for a culture to exist in a new location while being unchanged to the point of being true to its original culture?

I feel like I am rambling because I don't understand the thread. What is the problem with the word/idea? If people of one culture move two a new area, there are now two cultures in the area as opposed to one, so it is multicultural. Seems pretty simple to me. Can you explain more to me?

[The Abstract]

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

Cultures evolve, that is true. But the evolution of a culture does not result in a brand new culture. "Successful" multiculturalism is nothing more than being able to find cultures living in general peace across a contextually small geographic region. It's not about integrating Mexican immigrant culture with the culture of Americans (i.e. Californians, Texans, Arizonans, etc.), it's about being able to co-exist. That is a crucial distinction.

Thoughts?

edit: It should be noted that I personally can't stand the term multiculturalism and I'd prefer we be able to discuss this issue without us calling it a nonsensical word.

Exactly. The word multicultural implies multiple distinct cultures...blending two cultures so they share characteristics just makes the two cultures closer to one culture.

[Vit Beeyer (Banned)]

Originally Posted by DayoftheGreek

I feel like that story about the ship is relevant here. If you have a ship, named the USS PBNation, and the rudder is replaced, it it still the USS PBN. Then the sail is replaced, it's still the USS PBN. Eventually if the entire ship is made of non-original parts, is it still the PBN? Over how long a period does it have to be rebuilt for this to remain true?

Except things aren't replaced in culture.

I feel like I am rambling because I don't understand the thread. What is the problem with the word/idea? If people of one culture move two a new area, there are now two cultures in the area as opposed to one, so it is multicultural. Seems pretty simple to me. Can you explain more to me?

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012...-of-the-world/

Long read but worth it.

Most multiculturalists would probably consider themselves as standing in the liberal Enlightenment tradition. But the rootedness of their argument in the Romantic counter-Enlightenment often gives a distinctly illiberal sheen to the policies they advocate. Take Tariq Modood’s demand that people be required to give respect to various cultures and that public arrangements be adapted to accommodate them. Does this mean that schools should be forced to teach Creationism because it is part of Christian fundamentalist culture? Or should public arrangements be adapted to reflect the belief of many cultures that homosexuality is a sin? These, of course, are not abstract questions. Creationism, gay marriage, abortion, women’s rights – these issues are at the heart of contemporary cultural conflicts.

‘It is in the interest of every person to be fully integrated in a cultural group’, the moral philosopher Joseph Raz has written. And that has become a common view in many multiculturalist claims. But what is to be fully integrated? If a Muslim woman rejects sharia law, is she demonstrating her lack of integration? What about a Jew who doesn’t believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish State? Or a French Quebecois who speaks only English? Would Galilleo have challenged the authority of the Church if he had been ‘fully integrated’ into his culture? Or Thomas Paine have supported the French Revolution? Or Salman Rushdie written The Satanic Verses?

Slavery was an abomination and clearly had a catastrophic impact on black Americans. But however inhuman the treatment of slaves and however deep its impact on black American life, why should this amount to a descendant of slaves being ‘bereft of a culture’? This can only be if we believe that Bigger Thomas should be behaving in certain ways that he isn’t, the ways that his ancestors used to behave. In other words, if we believe that what defines what you should be doing is the fact that your ancestors were doing it. Culture here has become defined by biological descent. And biological descent is a polite way of saying ‘race’. As the American literary critic Walter Benn Michaels puts it, ‘In order for a culture to be lost… it must be separable from one’s actual behaviour, and in order for it to be separable from one’s actual behaviour it must be anchorable in race.’

The logic of the preservationist arguments is that every culture has a pristine form, its original state. It decays when it is not longer in that form. There are echoes here of the concept of ‘type’ that was at the heart of nineteenth century racial science. A racial type was a group of human beings linked by a set of fundamental characteristics that was unique to it. Each type was separated from others by a sharp discontinuity; there was rarely any doubt as to which type an individual belonged. Each type remained constant through time. There were severe limits to how much any member of a type could drift away from the fundamental ground plan by which the type was constituted. These are the very characteristics that constitute a culture in much of today’s multiculturalism talk. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how multicultural policy could conceive of cultures in any other way. How could rights be accorded to cultures, or cultures be recognised or preserved if they did not possess rigid boundaries?

Once membership of cultural types is defined by the possession of certain characteristics, and rights and privileges granted by virtue of possessing those characteristics, then it is but a short step to deny membership of a culture to people who do not possess those characteristics and hence to deny them certain rights and privileges. The language of diversity all too easily slips into the idiom of exclusion.

Shortly before his death, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin was interviewed by the political philosopher Steven Lukes. Was it possible, Lukes asked, for peoples of different cultures, such as Arabs and Jews, to live together?

‘When you have two peoples of different origins and cultures’, Berlin replied, ‘it is difficult for them to live together in peace… it is quite natural that each side should think that they cannot lead free lives in an integrated society if the others are there in quantity.’ Similarly, black immigration to Western Europe was ‘a problem’ because ‘cultures which have grown up with no contact with one another have now collided’.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Internal development > evolution via forced cohabitation

The former is more stable while the latter creates discord.

If such a dichotomy exist. With the internet, it's going to be damned near impossible to stay isolated.

[Gisgo09]

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

Cultures evolve, that is true. But the evolution of a culture does not result in a brand new culture. "Successful" multiculturalism is nothing more than being able to find cultures living in general peace across a contextually small geographic region. It's not about integrating Mexican immigrant culture with the culture of Americans (i.e. Californians, Texans, Arizonans, etc.), it's about being able to co-exist. That is a crucial distinction.

Thoughts?

edit: It should be noted that I personally can't stand the term multiculturalism and I'd prefer we be able to discuss this issue without us calling it a nonsensical word.

Define a contextually small geographic region please.

[Vit Beeyer (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Gisgo09

Define a contextually small geographic region please.

Give me the context.

[Gisgo09]

^ It's your phrase, you clearly had something in mind when you used it. (It should be noted that things like this are why people shy away from even entering into a discussion with you).

But I'll play along. Were you thinking small country size, state size, county, city or city blocks? If the area is too small the culture can not expand, nor can they sustain themselves. If they're working and living with another culture on a daily basis, then they will evolve and the two (or more) cultures will eventually begin to blend together/evolve.

I guess my question to traditionalist (my term, but you should know what I mean by it) like yourself and Iamamartianchurch is what point in time are you looking to go back to. Should we go back to the dawn of civilization and keep those traditions and have no cultural mixing from there? It seems like trying to keep things segregated and rooted in the past is a futile exercise.

I'd argue that people being unwilling to accept and live with differences is a major contributor to the conflicts you speak of when cultures interact. So the argument of traditionalist seems to be that in order to keep people like themselves from causing problems, we should segregate and validate their narrow minded views. It's a little bit like the teachers at school starting the day off by asking all the children to hand over their lunch money to the class bullies in an effort to prevent the kids from getting beaten up at lunch.

Please note I'm not calling you or Iamamartianchurch narrow minded or implying that you would incite conflict towards people who aren't like you. I'm merely pointing out that there are an abundance of people who don't like change and mistrust anything or anyone which is different from their norms.

[Iamamartianchurch]

First off I wouldn't incite violence on anyone but those who.threaten my life and way of life. Resources notwithstanding. I'm largely fine with that one as well.

There isnt so much a point in time to reference because I take the cyclical view of history very seriously. I also take the view that it is our duty to pick up the work our ancestors begun. Towards what ends I'm not always certain myself. There's that fate component in there. An artifact of causality.

As far as what to choose. I can't tell you definitively. I believe that different cultural ethos each resonate differently with people. Obviously going far beyond the just the outward appearance of the culture. Its not something I feel boils down to a matter of conscious choice. If you feel discomfort with something alien, you will no doubt seek out alter natives.

**** I lost track.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Traditions are traditions because the practices in them work. They are relics of the tests of time. Moreover, they are refined throughout the ages they are in existence. When they survive the rise and decay of civilizations, you know they have merit. It is those traditions that you uphold.

[Iamamartianchurch]

You are correct, much internal conflict has to do with a clash of cultures. They clash because everyone wishes to live amongst their own. It is easier to accept and tolerate the differences of other cultures when you do not live among them. Thus they are merely another people in another land that has little if any direct consequences to your way of life.

People are happiest among those who are the most like them. More importantly they have a stronger inclination.towards good will and are less likely to screw each other over constantly since they share similar values. When people within a nation no longer have to squabble over identity, values and culture, they can pursue higher goals with some sense of unity.

Remember. Respecting others differences doesn't mean you have to like them.

[Vit Beeyer (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Gisgo09

^ It's your phrase, you clearly had something in mind when you used it. (It should be noted that things like this are why people shy away from even entering into a discussion with you).

It's no special term, rather than merely say small geographic region I add contextually because a discussion of cultures could then be dissected until we discuss all the different subcultures encompassing one general culture and it's various social classes. People shy away because they're shy and scared to ask questions, don't try and put it on me.

But I'll play along. Were you thinking small country size, state size, county, city or city blocks? If the area is too small the culture can not expand, nor can they sustain themselves. If they're working and living with another culture on a daily basis, then they will evolve and the two (or more) cultures will eventually begin to blend together/evolve.

What does blend together/evolve mean? Tolerance=/=blending cultures.

I guess my question to traditionalist (my term, but you should know what I mean by it) like yourself and Iamamartianchurch is what point in time are you looking to go back to. Should we go back to the dawn of civilization and keep those traditions and have no cultural mixing from there? It seems like trying to keep things segregated and rooted in the past is a futile exercise.

Traditionalist is not your term, it's common. I'm not looking to go back in time, that's a fallacy. Preserving culture doesn't mean destroying existing ones to pursue an idealized past. I'd rather we forget about enlightenment liberalism/rationalism than anything else.

I'd argue that people being unwilling to accept and live with differences is a major contributor to the conflicts you speak of when cultures interact. So the argument of traditionalist seems to be that in order to keep people like themselves from causing problems, we should segregate and validate their narrow minded views. It's a little bit like the teachers at school starting the day off by asking all the children to hand over their lunch money to the class bullies in an effort to prevent the kids from getting beaten up at lunch.

Are you trying to claim that said unwillingness isn't a large contributing factor in inter-cultural violence? The only way to prevent said unwillingness is to provide sound institutional arrangements that can formalize the informal rules and customs of a culture and apply said rules equally across those people who fall under the jurisdiction of such institutions of governance. We aren't just going to make people love each other and paternalistic policies aimed at nudging social values aren't likely to work, especially when we're discussing moral values.

You're also presenting the issue of inter-cultural violence as one of a bully picking on a weaker child. That's quite an easy way to tilt the discussion in your favor but I don't buy it.

Please note I'm not calling you or Iamamartianchurch narrow minded or implying that you would incite conflict towards people who aren't like you. I'm merely pointing out that there are an abundance of people who don't like change and mistrust anything or anyone which is different from their norms.

Why is it every time either of us gets into this discussion people feel the need to point out there are idiotic people who claim to be conservative/traditionalist/against multiculturalism? Don't you think it'd be annoying for me to just point out plenty of people for multiculturalism believe that not openly supporting other cultures is morally wrong and that white guilt is a necessary thing?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

I'd rather we forget about enlightenment liberalism/rationalism than anything else.

I completely support this notion above all else I have said on the subject.

[Gisgo09]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

There isnt so much a point in time to reference because I take the cyclical view of history very seriously. I also take the view that it is our duty to pick up the work our ancestors begun. Towards what ends I'm not always certain myself. There's that fate component in there. An artifact of causality.

I can't disagree with any of that.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Traditions are traditions because the practices in them work. They are relics of the tests of time. Moreover, they are refined throughout the ages they are in existence. When they survive the rise and decay of civilizations, you know they have merit. It is those traditions that you uphold.

There are plenty of traditions around which serve no purpose in today's society, yet they're still clung to. Banning birth control for example.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

You are correct, much internal conflict has to do with a clash of cultures. They clash because everyone wishes to live amongst their own. It is easier to accept and tolerate the differences of other cultures when you do not live among them. Thus they are merely another people in another land that has little if any direct consequences to your way of life.

That's great in theory. But in practice it's not feasible today. There are too many people, not enough resources, travel and communication are too easy. You can't prevent mixing anymore. I love the concept of Communism, but I know it's just not possible. Therefore I don't advocate trying to implement it.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

People are happiest among those who are the most like them. More importantly they have a stronger inclination.towards good will and are less likely to screw each other over constantly since they share similar values. When people within a nation no longer have to squabble over identity, values and culture, they can pursue higher goals with some sense of unity.

Isn't that the idea behind multiculturalism? Get over your differences, learn to live together and move on to better things?

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

People shy away because they're shy and scared to ask questions, don't try and put it on me.

It seems to me there is a pattern emerging with you on these boards. Nothing ever seems to be your fault and you're never wrong. You've been banned how many times, yet it's never your fault. I and others don't like entering into discussions with you because in what I can only assume is a fear of being wrong, you always leave yourself ample wiggle room through vagueness to either claim you're talking about something else or change the subject entirely. I don't like entering into discussion with you because of what I just said, not because I'm shy or scared to ask question, don't speak for me or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

What does blend together/evolve mean? Tolerance=/=blending cultures.

It's not difficult. When you put to cultures together and they interact long enough they will eventually take traits from each other, interbreed and eventually evolve into a new culture based on the two previous ones. It's a simple fact born out through history.

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

Traditionalist is not your term, it's common. I'm not looking to go back in time, that's a fallacy. Preserving culture doesn't mean destroying existing ones to pursue an idealized past. I'd rather we forget about enlightenment liberalism/rationalism than anything else.

I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding so you didn't go off on some tangent.

Just to give me some idea, does that mean you want something along the lines of monarchy? Would 18th century Prussia (under Frederic the Great) be a good example, or is there too much enlightenment/rationalism involved there? This question is to you and Iamamartianchurch. Hopefully it helps me understand what it is you really are looking for so we better understand each other.

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

Are you trying to claim that said unwillingness isn't a large contributing factor in inter-cultural violence? The only way to prevent said unwillingness is to provide sound institutional arrangements that can formalize the informal rules and customs of a culture and apply said rules equally across those people who fall under the jurisdiction of such institutions of governance. We aren't just going to make people love each other and paternalistic policies aimed at nudging social values aren't likely to work, especially when we're discussing moral values.

You're also presenting the issue of inter-cultural violence as one of a bully picking on a weaker child. That's quite an easy way to tilt the discussion in your favor but I don't buy it.

You're right. A sound government is needed to stabilize a culture. And no we can't write a law that says group A has to love group B. We can however write laws that say group A can't mistreat group B. How do you explain the massive shift in attitude towards Gay people over the past 20 or so years? If it's impossible to get people to learn and accept others, then what happened? From my perspective, all it took was enough exposure on a personal level coupled with some education and people's minds started to change in a hurry. At some point being okay with Gays will be the norm and the people who are uncomfortable with anything outside the norm will cling to the new norm like the sheep they are (thanks to our evolutionary need to be part of the group so we don't get eaten by a lion when we're all alone in the night).

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

Why is it every time either of us gets into this discussion people feel the need to point out there are idiotic people who claim to be conservative/traditionalist/against multiculturalism? Don't you think it'd be annoying for me to just point out plenty of people for multiculturalism believe that not openly supporting other cultures is morally wrong and that white guilt is a necessary thing?

By all means, do it. I know there are fools on all sides and they're the primary problem.

[Iamamartianchurch]

I'll get to this when I have a means of multi quoting. If I try to respond on this phonr . You know.

[Vit Beeyer (Banned)]

Originally Posted by Gisgo09

It seems to me there is a pattern emerging with you on these boards. Nothing ever seems to be your fault and you're never wrong. You've been banned how many times, yet it's never your fault. I and others don't like entering into discussions with you because in what I can only assume is a fear of being wrong, you always leave yourself ample wiggle room through vagueness to either claim you're talking about something else or change the subject entirely. I don't like entering into discussion with you because of what I just said, not because I'm shy or scared to ask question, don't speak for me or anyone else.

I've been on these boards 8 years. Very few of you actually know me. I shouldn't have to PM all of you to explain myself. You entered into a discussion with me already, why do you start out your argument with this bull**** each time? Do you write this now so you have a cop-out later?

It's not difficult. When you put to cultures together and they interact long enough they will eventually take traits from each other, interbreed and eventually evolve into a new culture based on the two previous ones. It's a simple fact born out through history.

Then give some actual examples rather than detail it very ambiguously. You make a huge jump from taking traits from one another to creating a new culture. For example, if you found an interracial, married couple would you tell them that neither is representative of their original culture and that they are in fact interbreeding and creating something new? Regardless of whether you'd tell them, do you think either would sacrifice their individual culture? An individual respecting the behavioral norms of someone from a different culture is not the same as modifying whatever existing culture the individual is a member of.

You assume that a respect for culture and a traditionalist point of view leads one to be close-minded and imperialist it seems.

There are plenty of traditions around which serve no purpose in today's society, yet they're still clung to. Banning birth control for example.

You said that in reply to Martian. How is a political policy an example of cultural or social tradition? It's not even a bipartisan political policy. So whats the point of bringing up this bad example of multicultural policy (a banning of a practice over all cultural lines, its very equal and fair)?

I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding so you didn't go off on some tangent.

These cute little character attacks are too much. So implicit, but right in your face anyway.

Just to give me some idea, does that mean you want something along the lines of monarchy? Would 18th century Prussia (under Frederic the Great) be a good example, or is there too much enlightenment/rationalism involved there? This question is to you and Iamamartianchurch. Hopefully it helps me understand what it is you really are looking for so we better understand each other.

You're so confused. I JUST SAID that being a traditionalist does not mean I wish to scrap thousands of existing cultures and political institutions to return to an idealized form of the past. Your question only muddies the original intent of my claim. We need to rid ourselves of the rational plan with a rationalist system of its own.

Oakeshott critiqued Friedrich Hayek's the Road to Serfdom and I think we should all read this little tidbit:

“This is, perhaps, the main significance of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom—not the cogency of his doctrine, but the fact that it is a doctrine. A plan to resist all planning may be better than its opposite, but it belongs to the same style of politics,”

I'm for anti-ideological, pragmatic political and economic arrangements. The unique characteristics that arise as do these institutions are not of concern to me.

You're right. A sound government is needed to stabilize a culture.

Well, I'd say that a sound government requires a sound culture but it's not worth debating.

And no we can't write a law that says group A has to love group B. We can however write laws that say group A can't mistreat group B.

When did we begin discussing what laws we can write?

You're also wrong. We can write a law that says group A has to love group B, just as much as we can write laws that say group A can't mistreat group B. AND they'd be equally ineffective.

What concerns me though is just how anti-multiculturalism this law you proposed is. You're saying that rather than create formal rules (laws) that apply equally across society you'd rather create special rules for the weak of society that are formalized laws! Yeah. That will work. Just like Jim Crow laws.

How do you explain the massive shift in attitude towards Gay people over the past 20 or so years? If it's impossible to get people to learn and accept others, then what happened? From my perspective, all it took was enough exposure on a personal level coupled with some education and people's minds started to change in a hurry. At some point being okay with Gays will be the norm and the people who are uncomfortable with anything outside the norm will cling to the new norm like the sheep they are (thanks to our evolutionary need to be part of the group so we don't get eaten by a lion when we're all alone in the night).

Homosexuality transcends culture, gender, politics, etc. It's a sexual disposition. We aren't discussing the shift in cultural values that led Massachusetts abolitionists to attempt to secede from the Union in the Civil War, we're talking about one of the few cultural behavioral values that transcended culture! You aren't just going to one day have a black sister if you're from backwoods Alabama, but you might have a gay sister.

So why did you even bring this up?

BTW, we didn't write any special laws saying that you have to especially avoid harming homosexuals. At least I'm not aware of it. We do recognize hate crimes though, but we still don't permit gays to marry or adopt so I'm finding it hard to believe this is simply an example of nudging cultures to accept one another when this is one of the few topics people agreed upon regardless of ethnic/racial lines.

By all means, do it. I know there are fools on all sides and they're the primary problem.

If you already know it and I already know it how is sharing that knowledge nothing more than self-congratulatory knowledge masturbation?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Here's to the monarchy question though.

From my observevations of human nature and other primates, monarchy seems most in accordance with human nature. Coincidentally it is easy the longest running form of government. We naturally seem to look up to a leader. You'll find that in how presidential elections are treated and even belief in God. The idea behind monarchy and aristocracy is you put your best up top to guide and lead. The motivation for doing well is that you must create a stable nation not only for yourself but for your children who will one day take your spot. Traits are hereditary therefore, save for inbreeding and genetic deformation, and pure probability, it is likely your children will be a chip off the old block.

Now it ain't perfect, there are flaws. Obviously if a leader is decadent he should be deposed and a new line should be established. I think the baby got thrown out with the bath water. I'm not a monarchist by any means. I think it has its merits. Probably not for every group either. I'll let them figure that out.

For example. I dont think that monarchy is good for the english. This is because the English view social class in terms of wealth. Prussians on the other hand view social class by duty and ability. The reward was the prestige. The public servants and such were not paid terribly well. The reward was rank. Rank and duty. For this, monarchy works better. I believe the Prussian attitude and model is what Jefferson names the natural aristocracy.

As I talked earlier about resonance. The Prussian values resonate within me. Unknown for a long time until I.had exposure to what I'm talking about. I've always taken.higher positions with little regard for increase compensation. Its always been about the challenge and the prestige.