- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
alaskaboy19 wrote:
Yes, it is a beautiful spectacle when family members can coexist with varying views on faith, culture, and ethnic backrounds. But this is just what we see in one lifetime. I think that a melting pot works slowly, but irreversibly. It takes many generations for the full effects of a melting pot to be realized. In my definition, blending is when races of people or cultures or religions of people over time are exposed to new ones, and eventually stop caring about these traditions, because they don’t see the point in being different. i.e. “I accept your culture, and you accept mine, so lets just forget both of our cultures because we’re tired of being different from each other.I’m going to be real honest here. I don’t get traditions. Not mine, not someone else’s. It’s illogical to me. I followed many growing up but was very unhappy because the traditions weren’t not something I connected to. It felt and feels like I am loving someone else life when I do things constantly that they liked or felt best for them but I didn’t even know them and they don’t feel best or enjoyed by me. If I have any “tradition” now it’s that I freed myself of the depressing shackles I had since childhood and am now fluid.
I do things now that have meaning I my heart and I feel good about that are important to my life. I still observe my family traditions to honor them while at their house. But in my life I now do things differently each year and each time based on the need of the time and situation. Hence fluidity. It isn’t because of my fiancé or because of my many friends from different cultures. It’s me. I don’t understand why I have to continue to make myself miserable living someone else’s life of traditions. For awhile I thought there was something severely wrong with me and I desperately tried to force myself to connect to hopefully be happy in living someone else way of doing things. Now I just accept that is just the way I am and I don’t blame anyone including myself now for it. I don’t want to force my future children to live by traditions that don’t make them happy either but encourage to find ones that do.
The question of the post is if the video is racist. The answer is, “Yes, it is racist.” The question for those who view the video then is, “Will we accept the racist video?” – or the message it presents. Will we rationalize that type of racism based on how we view its historical accuracy? etc.
It’s not about the video; it’s about what we do with it and its conclusions.
It’s about me, not someone else.
Old-Timer wrote:The question of the post is if the video is racist. The answer is, “Yes, it is racist.”
The question is whether or not multiculturalism being portrayed as “the great thing that western civilization MUST embrace” by the leftist media is actually good or bad in the long run. The question of the video was just for the purpose of attracting attention. I respect peoples’ opinions that it is racist, but I do think it is a little more complicated.
If nothing else, I only hope it was pointed out that there’s two sides to every story (even racism). I think that fits the description of the mission statement of this website, because we discuss a variety of things related to the gospel, that expand on more than what you just learn at church.
I’m going to try to approach this from and LDS perspective. Like every other 19th century American institution, race was a factor in the history of the church. The ban seemed to come out of left field and provided no benefit to the church, but institutionalized bigotry. Unfortunately, it was a bit of a perfect storm, because in a church which believes it must hear from God in order to change doctrine and/or deep-rooted policy, we can see that two unsavory things happened: 1) The church delayed far too long in reversing the policy… here I am certain that there were many leaders that wanted it to be changed, but who felt they were upholding doctrine, 2) members of the church from the top down to rank-and-file members, felt the need to justify the practice, and the only way to do that was to declare blacks as cursed and spiritually handicapped. It was wrong on every possible front. Thankfully, the ban was eventually lifted.
Prior to the 1950’s the church was almost entirely white, european… there was a pretty strong presence in the Pacific, but small in comparison. But there was a significant change. As the church gained critical mass, it was able to expand into places it hadn’t before. Today, there are more members outside the US than in it. Africa, Asia, South America… the population of the church has exploded in those places. The church is much much much different than it was in post-WWII America. In my opinion, the church is embracing the new world order. Even in places like Utah and Idaho, you can probably find someone in nearly every ward whose primary language is not English. There is actually an undercurrent of multiculturalism in the LDS church, because so many adults have lived in foreign countries and speak foreign languages. It’s more subtle, because in the LDS church, we obviously tend to assimilate more, rather than straight co-exist. Kind of no surprise there, since religion is a major factor in culture. I look at how the church has changed in my lifetime, and how I expect it to continue to change, and it’s a good thing. I’d never want to go back… only forward.
Even the doctrines of the church are quite “liberal”. Our church teaches that every person, regardless of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexual preference is a child of God, able to fully access the power of the atonement, and will be afforded a real opportunity to accept and follow God’s plan. While we teach that there is a “chosen people”, it is also a doctrine of the church that all who accept the gospel are “adopted” into the House of Israel, and that spiritually it is no different from being a literal member of that House. That’s pretty awesome and unique. Individually, we frequently fall short of that lofty ideal, but it is what we strive for. Racism, in any form, whether against minorities or majorities, is contrary to the gospel. Fighting racism with racism is contrary to the gospel.
alaskaboy19, I’m going to respond to each statement in your last comment individually – and, without trying to be condescending in ANY way, I’m going to point out that I am 47 and you are 18. I’ve been around the block a few times in my extra 30 years on earth, and I’ve dealt with everything in the video in some way or another. Also, my Bachelor’s thesis was focused on Manifest Destiny, so I’ve studied and thought about this general issue for a long time. Quote:The question is whether or not multiculturalism being portrayed as “the great thing that western civilization MUST embrace” by the leftist media is actually good or bad in the long run.
1) That wasn’t asked in your post, so there was no way to respond to it until you asked it.
2) Multi-culturalism simply means accepting multiple cultures. It is the opposite of uni-culturalism – and that simple fact generally is overlooked in most discussions about it. In and of itself, multi-culturalism is a good thing – except when it isn’t with regard to how it actually is implemented. I want the LDS Church, for example, to embrace openly the idea that it’s OK to see things differently and still be united – and even that it’s possible to be truly Zion without everyone thinking exactly alike. That, in a very real way, is the same concept as multi-culturalism. Yes, there are extremes that can be harmful and bad, but that’s true about absolutely everything imaginable in this world.
3) “The leftist media” is a slur. The media isn’t leftist; certain stations and programs are leftist, and probably more are leftist than rightist – but there are plenty of rightest ones for those who want rightest ones.
Quote:The question of the video was just for the purpose of attracting attention.
Don’t do that here. We aren’t about “attracting attention” or trying to get the most commments about any particular post. If you have a question, ask it directly; don’t go around it by asking something that sounds more sensational. It’s not how we operate here.
Quote:I respect peoples’ opinions that it is racist, but I do think it is a little more complicated.
Of course, it’s more complicated – but that doesn’t change in any way the fact that it’s racist. It’s both – racist and more complicated. We shouldn’t deny either its racism or its complicated nature. At heart, however, it still is racist, no matter how complicated it is.
Quote:If nothing else, I only hope it was pointed out that there’s two sides to every story (even racism).
Of course, there are two sides to every story. Sometimes, both sides are equally valid; sometimes, one side is valid and the other side is pure crap; usually, the balance is somewhere between those extremes. In this case, there being two sides doesn’t change in the slightest that one of them is founded on and rooted in racism – and historically absurd statements.
Quote:I think that fits the description of the mission statement of this website, because we discuss a variety of things related to the gospel, that expand on more than what you just learn at church.
Actually, it only fits the mission statement if it is something with which you are struggling and we con discuss ways to think about it that help you find or create a solution that helps you stay LDS. Our mission here isn’t necessarily to talk about things we don’t talk about normally at church; it’s to deal with things that cause members to struggle. Honestly, so far, I’m not seeing that in this post. Instead, I’m seeing someone trying to convince others of something they believe.
I might be totally wrong about that perception, but it’s what I’m seeing right now.
alaskaboy19 wrote:The question is whether or not multiculturalism being portrayed as “the great thing that western civilization MUST embrace” by the leftist media is actually good or bad in the long run.
We’ve already been doing this for 500+ years in the western hemisphere (North and South America): In 1492, Columbus sailed the oceans blue…
It’s a little late to start wondering if it’s a good idea. It’s already been happening for centuries. Go back in time through history and there are always large groups of people trying to blend and assimilate into the west. The same is happening elsewhere on other continents. People are constantly in motion. We just don’t tend to hear about multiculturalism in other continents much in our history lessons. There is no point in history when this was not happening on a large scale. Peaceful trade and exchanges with other “tribes” is how we got to where the world is today. I personally don’t want to go back in time. Life was much more brutal, violent and short in the past. I wouldn’t even want to go back 100 years. My life would be half as long, if I was lucky. And I’m not a fan of living without modern medical and dental care. Just sayin’… I like having convenient anesthesia when I go to the dentist, and antibiotics when I get sick.
Our language, food, customs, even our form of government is a mish-mash stew of cultures that were here originally, and those who brought their culture with them after that. When are we supposed to set the dial on Dr. Who’s time machine to go back to the “correct” point in culture, before it was ruined by change and depravity?
I believe sharing culture and ideas is a good process. If we don’t change and adapt, taking the best ideas and letting go of the dysfunctional ones, we are selected out of the “gene pool.” Change is not a bad thing. It is the essence of life on a dynamically changing planet.
FWIW, I think it’s more complicated than that. Bear with me. I think you exaggerate history by saying that multiculturalism has always been happening on a large scale. Certainly assimilation hasn’t been happening forever. In Europe, for instance, there are two groups of non-Europeans that lived there for much of it’s history: the Jews, and the Romani people (gypsies). Now even though those two groups lived there for hundreds if not thousands of years, I can definnately tell you they didn’t assimilate. In fact, Europeans didn’t ever really like them being there.
And yes, we have always traded and been in contact with distant peoples. But trade and contact are very different than assimilation. Assimilation would’ve been to let foreigners come back to our home countries, marry our women, and settle down.
You bring up the colonization of North and South America. Two main groups of Europeans instigated long-term settlement in these lands: the English and the Spanish. The #1 difference in the method by which they settled involves their interaction with the natives. The Spanish literally went to town on marrying native women. Hardly any Spanish women were brought over, so Spanish soldiers and sailors resorted to marrying native women. Latinos are decendants of Spanish colonists as well as the Aboriginals. ((The same is true in the Phillipines)) Our English ancestors strictly refrained from allowing intermarriage and specifically brought over Englishmen and Englishwomen, as to ensure the creation of a miniature English society in New England and Canada. This was the foundation of America. Fast forward three hundred years, where would you rather live? The United States and Canada—-OR
Mexico and South America.I’m not saying that the poor conditions of Latin and South America (Oh, AND the Philipines) are the result of multiculturalism and racial assimilation, but I am saying that it is POSSIBLE that they played a role. It is only through FREE SPEECH and close examination of anthropology and history that we can come to an answer about multiculturalism. Today, if someone opposes multiculturalism, everyone screams BLOODY MURDER RACIST. That’s what I have a problem with.
Once again, I may be putting myself in hot water discussing these things, but I believe if you have to ask hard questions if you want real answers.
alaskaboy, as bluntly as I can put this, your recitation of history is wrong. It really is that simple. Yes, some cultures have escaped intermingling, but there is no indication they now are better off for it than they would have been if they hadn’t remained separate. In the case of the Japanese up until the late 1800’s, lack of exposure to and “assimilation” of extra-cultural aspects actually contributed to their crushing defeat when Europe finally took interest in them. Likewise, the isolation of the South American peoples was a large reason why they were so succeptible to European colonization – both with regard to disease and to military innovation.
Again, “assimiliation” almost always happens for one of two reasons:
Poorer peoples wanting better lives or richer peoples wanting to get richer. It’s either “voluntary” (chosen) or “involuntary” (forced).
It all boils down to what someone wants – “purity” / isolation or getting along with reality.
Quote:Once again, I may be putting myself in hot water discussing these things, but I believe if you have to ask hard questions if you want real answers.
Hot water isn’t the right image. You’re not going to get banned for this topic. It’s just that, for most of us, the questions being asked aren’t all that hard – and you’re getting real answers, imo. I honestly don’t think the questions from this video are hard; I think they are misguided and rest on an improper foundation.
I can get the answer I want by asking the question that will produce the answer – but that doesn’t mean either the question or the answer was a good or hard one.
So, first of all, racism is wrong, and that includes reverse-discrimination. However, you seem to be standing on the side of racial exclusion and isolation, and I would say that is just a veiled form of racism.
Look, people think of chocolate as Swiss or maybe German (in deference to Brian). People think of potatoes as Irish; they think of yummy tomato sauces as coming from Tuscany… but these weren’t introduced in Europe until after the discovery of the new world. We probably wouldn’t have liked lasagna before that. Italy was made better by the introduction of the tomato.
America is the land of multiculturalism and it is a STRENGTH not a weakness. After all, what could be more American than a hamburger and french fries?
Alaskaboy, I just want to help you understand my side of the paradigm. While having 1000s of songs of music from over 50 different countries, my movies come from nearly 30 nations. I take my shoes off before I enter my house, often bow greeting people to show reverence and respect, I drink mate frequently with my fiancé and speak partial languages from nearly all my friends etc. all this is to say I really really enjoy adopting things from other cultures that are authentically me. Things I feel fit the admonition of Paul.
—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
I think that fits this perfectly. It’s part of our LDS belief. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Sometimes I seem to get singled out, ok a lot of times I get thought of as strange or unamerican or LDS because of it. People often tell me I am not X nationality, I am white and I should act like it. It hurts me deeply because the things I adopted are authentically me while staying true to myself and seeking the admonition of Paul.
The hamburger is the way it is today because we got the idea from Germany, got the tomato for catsup from Peru. Many of the things we take for granted enjoying originated from someplace else having been modified to suit our taste or lifestyle.
I consider that a blessing of god, not a curse.
After all, wasn’t Christ persecuted because he broke with established Jewish tradition from the Pharisees.
I have no desire to think like that.
We all originated from eastern Africa. We have been mingling and mixing and exchanging culture since we first left there. We even mixed with Neanderthals. So all this is to say this has happened from the foundation of humanity. And has lead to our strength, not our weakness.
I love that god gave of each unquie ways of doing things, each unquie truths so that we may learn from one another and draw closer together helping one another. At least that’s how I look at it. No race race, culture or even faith has the monopoly on all that is good or true. We could stand to learn from one another, I believe that is god instituted it that way for a reason.
One last note, with regards to south America just as a example. The Aztecs and the Incas we’re definitely warring and imparting their cultures during the time of isolation from the east. It’s not like north or south America was a peaceful harmonious non culturally diverse place. It had many tribes and many intermingled with both race and culture, sometimes willing and sometimes by force.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.