Cultural Warfare

[N.Knight]

It just occurred to me that for any culture to survive in a totalitarian or purist state it will need to go to war with another culture or it must suffer dilution.
Or the culture must barricade itself into xenophobic ghettos.
This has happened throughout human history. Whenever a new breed of people enter an area, the resident inhabitants get uncomfortable by the new ideas and world view they bring with them. What follows is a cold war, followed by riots, rape and ethnic cleansing. So, is there is a solution to this, can two or more cultures ever survive in parallels without conflicts of interest.
Thoughts?

Edit\Note: Don't use real world examples, if you must use with caution. It is not 'that' kind of thread.

 

[Wazzz]

An interesting topic. I personally think that war as an unfortunate inevitability of humanity. For every Ghandi there is a Genghis Kahn.

I would go one step further and suggest that even if the world somehow evolved to function in one culture there would still be conflicts of interest. People are far too varied and most of them are self serving.

 

[N.Knight]

I would go one step further and suggest that even if the world somehow evolved to function in one culture there would still be conflicts of interest. People are far too varied and most of them are self serving.

Very important point. Conflicts of interest will forever remain even in the smallest of groups.
Will you say that democracy is an answer to reduce this aggressive tendency for war and reach outcomes which are favorable to both sides?

 

[Wazzz]

I find the main flaw with democracy is, at times, it presents the illusion of choice. A lot of the time, voters are forced into voting for what they believe to be the lesser of two evils rather than what is actually best for a country.

[Hoping this is a reasonable real world example ]
In Australia, our last election was between Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. People weren't overly keen on either, but Kevin Rudd got a slight majority of votes. However, most people actually voted for third party groups, ones like Family First and The Greens. The problem with this that should any of these third party groups opt out of the election, they will put their votes to one of the two major political parties, labor or liberal. That's how Tony got in.

I suppose it is a better system than others, but I am curious as to whether or not a better one can be devised.

 

[InfernalTater]

I find the main flaw with democracy is, at times, it presents the illusion of choice. A lot of the time, voters are forced into voting for what they believe to be the lesser of two evils rather than what is actually best for a country.

[Hoping this is a reasonable real world example ]
In Australia, our last election was between Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. People weren't overly keen on either, but Kevin Rudd got a slight majority of votes. However, most people actually voted for third party groups, ones like Family First and The Greens. The problem with this that should any of these third party groups opt out of the election, they will put their votes to one of the two major political parties, labor or liberal. That's how Tony got in.

I suppose it is a better system than others, but I am curious as to whether or not a better one can be devised.

That's mainly because there are simply too many people for true democracy. In a true democracy, people would speak together to determine what the options they will vote for are going to be. Having someone else give you the option to choose between shit and piss isn't democracy.

There are simply too many people to have everyone be able to speak together to decide what they're going to vote on, though.

As for the original topic, people are different, and most people instinctively have a pack mentality. They find a group, conform to it, and see anyone that is different from them as enemies that must be converted or destroyed.

 

[Wazzz]

That's mainly because there are simply too many people for true democracy. In a true democracy, people would speak together to determine what the options they will vote for are going to be. Having someone else give you the option to choose between shit and piss isn't democracy.

There are simply too many people to have everyone be able to speak together to decide what they're going to vote on, though.

As for the original topic, people are different, and most people instinctively have a pack mentality. They find a group, conform to it, and see anyone that is different from them as enemies that must be converted or destroyed.

All of this is very true.

I also find it strange when there are people who claim that anarchy is the solution, that removing the world's governments will solve everything. As you said, people instinctively have a pack mentality, and smaller groups will form. These groups will undoubtedly go on to conquer weaker groups until new governments are formed.

That's what I predict would happen, in any case

 

[N.Knight]

I find the main flaw with democracy is, at times, it presents the illusion of choice.

Best way to describe it. I find that democracy is an inherently flawed concept. And like you said, it only presents an 'illusion' of choice.

That's mainly because there are simply too many people for true democracy. There are simply too many people to have everyone be able to speak together to decide what they're going to vote on, though.

What exactly is 'true' democracy then? Are you saying that having a multitude of views destroys democracy? If you are saying that diversity destroys working for the larger good then I am afraid you are fringing on fascism.

As for the original topic, people are different, and most people instinctively have a pack mentality. They find a group, conform to it, and see anyone that is different from them as enemies that must be converted or destroyed.

But that has already been said. It is the premise of the thread. What is the solution to this pack mentality?



Carrying on with the theme of the thread, is democracy really helpful in curbing cultural conflict? I think not. In today's context it is only seen as the opposite of dictatorship and theocracy. Which is a shame really because it is reducing the concept to its base understanding. Democracy fails because it is not the logical side but majority which wins.
Take this hypothetical situation. A community where it is established that the world is flat. A small minority of logical thinkers presents the idea that the world is round and to change the texts in school books. They take a vote. The minority loses. The world remains flat. All hail democracy!

I also find it strange when there are people who claim that anarchy is the solution, that removing the world's governments will solve everything.

Yes, but anarchy is not the 'only' solution that is presented. There is also: Communism. Thoughts?

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

there is one simple solution to solve the democracy problem

if both options are poor ones, kill them and leave That as an example to their runner up leaders.

it's a tactic That has been used throughout history. during the Roman era the people ruled, not the government. we just need to stop playing theoretical diplomacy and become violent and demanding again.

another option would be to run your own election. both parties are shit so vote for me. in England we don't have this problem because the presidency isn't regarded as such. we simple regard them as people and in our debates with them, they are not Put up on a podium, but put right in front not even 3 meters away from the common people. that's what a governance should be, no hiding no running away from questions or anger. just here is what I don't like, what do you intend to do?


edit...

as for resolving conflict. I believe we need to fall back to the origins of governance. you had a community and a leader. when there is a flood or drought, people remembered who contributed to maintaining the village. this we can associate with tax, contribution. now when a member of this community is in need of aid, their past involvement in helping that community comes into question. their leader is someone who proves through actions, that they can actively control all communal woes and use resources to the best possible use.

our leaders need to fall back to this primitive stance. that you will no longer have a community voting for a leader hoping their homes Will be repaired, but rather voting for the leader who repaired there street

 

[GhostThruster]

i'm confused by your op because it's badly written. you first use 'culture' in a manner synonymous with 'nation' (there's no such thing as a 'totalitarian' or 'purist' culture... and you never mention these terms ever again). then you use culture in a context where 'ethnicity' would make more sense (and the entirely different topic of the inevitability of ghettos is also never mentioned again). finally, you ask whether multiple cultures can exist without a conflict of interest, without specifying the situation in which the cultures are interacting... (newsflash, cultures are interacting and surviving all the time. if you really want to think outside the box, then on an individual level it is impossible not to co-exist with other cultures [other groups, ages, families, even people]) all i'm seeing is a bunch of barely connected sentences.

please, i need some elaboration on what the heck you actually want to discuss. maybe start by specifying if you're talking about nations, ethnic minorities in multicultural nations, or group mentality in general?

 

[LordDz]

it's a tactic That has been used throughout history. during the Roman era the people ruled, not the government. we just need to stop playing theoretical diplomacy and become violent and demanding again.

....No?
During the Roman Era the Senate ruled.
After the senate came the dictators.

"become violent and demanding again"
Let's go burn some cars because that will give us freedom!

About the repairguys becoming the leaders.. What happens when there are more than two people fixing the road, what happens when different people fix the road, what if one guy fixes the road on monday and and a different person repairs a different part of the road on tuesday. Should they all go medieval on each other and kill each other? Becoming violent and demanding and all.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

....No?
During the Roman Era the Senate ruled.
After the senate came the dictators.

"become violent and demanding again"
Let's go burn some cars because that will give us freedom!

About the repairguys becoming the leaders.. What happens when there are more than two people fixing the road, what happens when different people fix the road, what if one guy fixes the road on monday and and a different person repairs a different part of the road on tuesday. Should they all go medieval on each other and kill each other? Becoming violent and demanding and all.

you are being totally unreasonable and over looking the meaning.

The senate was formed of many different tribal leads throughout Rome. this is what I mean about the community leader. We need to reestablish that primal form of governance once again. the tribal leader was just an ordinary man who did what's best for his community and also maintained and controlled them. if you felt your leader was injustice, you as a community could force him to step Down

in a sense, instead of burning cars because you disagree with the government, you can simple walk up to the presidents house and demand the problem be solve or step down.

tribal leaders had no defence against revolution. our government Has Been allowed to alienate themselves from the public so much that we are unable to revolt.

 

[N.Knight]

please, i need some elaboration on what the heck you actually want to discuss. maybe start by specifying if you're talking about nations, ethnic minorities in multicultural nations, or group mentality in general?

Don't feel so bad about it.
You are looking to narrow down the discussion to find a point to debate about whereas the topic here is very broad. Nations, tribes, governments, laws, customs, rituals and religion itself are all manifestations of culture. So the topic here is how cultural differences lead to eventual violence. Maybe it will make more sense to you if you will look at it (culture) as a phenomenon rather than a mere definition.
See: Culture

As you news-flashed, "cultures are interacting and surviving all the time", which is true, there is no denying that. However, if two cultures come together then there is always an identity crisis. The dominant culture (which has more followers) usually, slowly indoctrinates itself on the minority culture. Now if the minority culture wants to save its purity, it must either flee the dominant culture or become xenophobic and shut itself reducing its interaction with the dominant culture.

In a role reversal, if the dominant culture feels that the minority is slowly encroaching upon their land, customs, religion they can either allow that and risk losing to the minority (in population) or destroy the minority in a cultural holocaust.
Didn't want to use real world examples but think, pre holocaust Germany.
Question is, could it have been avoided?

 

[InfernalTater]

What exactly is 'true' democracy then? Are you saying that having a multitude of views destroys democracy? If you are saying that diversity destroys working for the larger good then I am afraid you are fringing on fascism.

Where the hell did I say that?

And secondly, believing that our current application of democracy does not work for the larger good does not make me a fascist. Fascism is very specific; not just anything contrary to what you believe. Zip it, your ignorance is showing.

I never stated that I was against people having the freedom to be diverse. I stated that we do NOT have this freedom because we do not use true democracy. Many countries, including the United States, use a republic. We vote for officials, and then these officials make our decisions. We ourselves do not vote on anything.

Even if people did have the option to vote on decisions, they would be choosing between two different options that they themselves did not come up with; so they would have the illusion of choice, while both outcomes were still decided by someone else.

True democracy would involve us all deciding WHAT we are going to vote on in the first place. However there are 7 billion people on the planet, and millions of people in every country, so this is simply impossible.

 

[N.Knight]

Zip it, your ignorance is showing.

THIS is fascism in its purest sense. Anyways I had said 'fringing on fascism' not outright fascism but I see you proved me wrong there.

 

[Celaquil]

Knight, your way of arguing isn't healthy, don't jump to personally offending assessments
about people you hardly know, they may formulate themselves differently from you, but
they aren't what you should concern yourself about. Be concerned about the argument,
not the person. A little of the same goes for you, Infernal.

Telling people what their argumentation method sounds like and telling someone to
don't debate because they "don't know what they're talking about" are both ad hominem
arguments, which can also be named logical fallacies. Basically: How you shouldn't debate.

Anyway, I am having trouble with this "true democracy" statement, to me it sounds as
far fetched as saying there is a thing called "perfection", the moment we stop being
sceptical and being inquisitive about such things is the moment we loose our humanity.
Democracy may be exercised differently in different countries, and there may surely
exist an undiscovered way of rule that would work better, but currently it's democracy,
in it's theoretical function, that is the most liberal way of ruling.

I am very happy with how it works in Norway, we don't have a republic, and I guess we
actually have a monarchy on paper, but our democracy is very people-friendly:

There are as many "parties" as people want, because the parties are formed by people,
and their politics are directed toward what the people of Norway want. They get elected
and stay in a sort of power for a period of four years, and then they have to get elected
anew. This means they have to appeal to the population of Norway not only in what
they promise during the election but also in what they do when they are in power,
because very simply put: If they don't keep their promises, or don't do what the people
deem "a good job" they won't stay in power. Obviously there's much more to it, but
this is the core function, and I have yet to see a system I think is better.

I also disagree about the culture points, nobody have to go to war with anyone,
the very concept of war is utterly foolish, there haven't ever been a single war that has
lead to financial or cultural gain for the winning part, ever. Obviously some wars have
been for the better of humanity, such as the war on the Nazis and such, but still.

There is this little word I prefer called "multicultural", that a country or place can consist
of various cultures that doesn't need to be in conflict with each-other, this is also
something that is largely successful in Norway, although I will admit we have our quirks
in that regard also.

I personally think that war as an unfortunate inevitability of humanity.

I am inclined to, or rather want to, believe that we are better than this. And the history
that we are currently living in is actually statistically showing that. We are currently living
in the longest period of peace between international countries that has ever been.
Sure there are looming matters, and civil-wars about, but that has always been the case,
the very fact that there are currently no countries in open war with each-other, however,
is something I'd say is worth recognizing.

Obviously whether or not there is any current open wars between countries depends on
what you consider an 'open war'. But still, there are at the very least extremely few, if
so, these days compared to ever before.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

so everyone is just going to ignore my post then...

you guys are such .... you know what! I got band for flaming last time so

you guys know exactly what big /&#*#&#*! you are

 

[N.Knight]

Knight, your way of arguing isn't healthy, don't jump to personally offending assessments about people you hardly know

Can you tell me where I did that? I think the user above complained to you and you are acting on that and trying to be neutral. Judge fairly.
I never said anything offending to him. On the other hand it is him who came in an outright offensive tone and asked me shut-up and in a self contradictory way told me that he is not a fascist. One can't help but give a reaction and can be hardly blamed for it. Because afterall, it is a reaction - which comes later.

Secondly, I had merely asked him to elucidate what he meant by 'true democracy' and how the idea of having a confined democracy seems synonymous to fascism. Note the word 'fringing' was used. The person in question should also know that in a debate 'you' is not a reference to the personality but a reference to the person expounding his argument. How else I am supposed to refer to him? Also, if he is so touchy then he should refrain from participating in public debates. If you are going to assert something then you be better prepared to defend it to the core.

I am very happy with how it works in Norway

As for the rest of what you said, I hate to say it but come down from your ivory tower and you will realize how the rest of the humanity is living. The world is not Norway and I have told you that numerous times. I really wish it was though. But, you see I don't live in Norway, I live in the far side of the eighth level of hell and I can't help but notice the cultural divides around me. I can't help but notice people killing each other in the name of gods, prophets, books, ideals, castes, beliefs, food habits, dressing etc. This is also a reality and you and nobody else can't negate that.

As to the original debate. It is about cultural warfare. And culture doesn't have to be limited to humans. It can be alien, galactic or it can be fantasy culture. It can be about the conflicts between orcs and humans on middle earth etc. Question here is how it can be avoided or nullified, or is it something which exists as a part of this chaotic multiverse.

I will just quote myself from an earlier post to present the idea again.

See: Culture

However, if two cultures come together then there is always an identity crisis. The dominant culture (which has more followers) usually, slowly indoctrinates itself on the minority culture. Now if the minority culture wants to save its purity, it must either flee the dominant culture or become xenophobic and shut itself reducing its interaction with the dominant culture.

In a role reversal, if the dominant culture feels that the minority is slowly encroaching upon their land, customs, religion they can either allow that and risk losing to the minority (in population) or destroy the minority in a cultural holocaust.

Edit:

so everyone is just going to ignore my post then...

hey calm down I was just coming back to you, then I got stuck in some infernal tatters, you know. Not that it matters now. LordDz did reply to you though.

So you were saying that we should go back to a primitive style of governance. I am sorry but I only got half of what you said. So, how do you relate this form of government to instating peace within 2 warring groups? How it will be more helpful then the current system?

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

Well in the current system we elect people who we don't necessarily knows.I say we Now turn to our community leader. he forms part of congress, from there he and other community leaders become the elected officials.

the difference I'm proposing is that instead of a part appearing out of no were and demanding an election under what they say they'll do. we instead have village leaders who we know have looked at a community well.

wow is sounds awful here but please go back and read my full explanation. it's something I believe can work on just for the big things like civil war, but for the small things like pot holes that never get fixed in your street.

instead of submitting a letter to some nameless person in some government department, asking for repairs to your street, and likely having your letter disappear and after 3 years of neglect discarded. you should instead be able to submit your complaints to a community leader whose sol job is to better your community. if they fail to do their job, then you can walk up to their house and guarantee they understand that you will not vote for them next monthly village leader election day.

also the president needs to form starting from this basic beginning.

 

[InfernalTater]

so everyone is just going to ignore my post then...

you guys are such .... you know what! I got band for flaming last time so

you guys know exactly what big /&#*#&#*! you are

Calm down, jeez!

you are being totally unreasonable and over looking the meaning.

The senate was formed of many different tribal leads throughout Rome. this is what I mean about the community leader. We need to reestablish that primal form of governance once again. the tribal leader was just an ordinary man who did what's best for his community and also maintained and controlled them. if you felt your leader was injustice, you as a community could force him to step Down

in a sense, instead of burning cars because you disagree with the government, you can simple walk up to the presidents house and demand the problem be solve or step down.

tribal leaders had no defence against revolution. our government Has Been allowed to alienate themselves from the public so much that we are unable to revolt.

You're right.

 

[Deathcom3s]

There's an interesting aspect of cultural warfare happening in the US at the moment. It's not a "war" in the typical sense, though it has been spurred by several murders and killings on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[GhostThruster]

Don't feel so bad about it.
You are looking to narrow down the discussion to find a point to debate about whereas the topic here is very broad. Nations, tribes, governments, laws, customs, rituals and religion itself are all manifestations of culture. So the topic here is how cultural differences lead to eventual violence. Maybe it will make more sense to you if you will look at it (culture) as a phenomenon rather than a mere definition.
See: Culture

As you news-flashed, "cultures are interacting and surviving all the time", which is true, there is no denying that. However, if two cultures come together then there is always an identity crisis. The dominant culture (which has more followers) usually, slowly indoctrinates itself on the minority culture. Now if the minority culture wants to save its purity, it must either flee the dominant culture or become xenophobic and shut itself reducing its interaction with the dominant culture.

In a role reversal, if the dominant culture feels that the minority is slowly encroaching upon their land, customs, religion they can either allow that and risk losing to the minority (in population) or destroy the minority in a cultural holocaust.
Didn't want to use real world examples but think, pre holocaust Germany.
Question is, could it have been avoided?

i was not looking to narrow the discussion, i wanted to know what the discussion actually was, considering you introduced like 3 separate topics of differing specificity and used 'culture' as a misnomer several times. that's probably the reason why people have veered off onto talking about democracy than your actual topic. now that you clarified i can argue.

okay so yes, cultural differences always lead to assimilation (or 'slow indoctrination' as you say), but it doesn't always lead to conflict.
and assimilation of culture isn't always one culture (the 'dominant' one as you say) completely taking over the other culture. it's a gradual process of combining two different cultures into one new culture. with a lack of conflicting interests, mutual acceptance, and well... time (and the occurence of these 3 factors aren't that rare. see: multiculturalism, as keiji pointed out), minorities needn't feel oppressed and dominant cultures needn't feel like they're being invaded. in such cases, xenophobic ghettos are not inevitable nor is genocide.

As for the rest of what you said, I hate to say it but come down from your ivory tower and you will realize how the rest of the humanity is living. The world is not Norway and I have told you that numerous times. I really wish it was though. But, you see I don't live in Norway, I live in the far side of the eighth level of hell and I can't help but notice the cultural divides around me. I can't help but notice people killing each other in the name of gods, prophets, books, ideals, castes, beliefs, food habits, dressing etc. This is also a reality and you and nobody else can't negate that.

it's funny because the world isn't the eighth level of hell either. keiji mentioned norway, not to say that his country is the entire world, but that situations of cultural integration - like within norway - exist and thus your stance that cultural warfare is inevitable is wrong.

 

[N.Knight]

the difference I'm proposing is that instead of a part appearing out of no were and demanding an election under what they say they'll do. we instead have village leaders who we know have looked at a community well.

yes, that might help a community but how do you relate it with culture?

There's an interesting aspect of cultural warfare happening in the US at the moment. It's not a "war" in the typical sense, though it has been spurred by several murders and killings on both sides of the spectrum.

Exactly the kind of conflict I am talking about. Actually, Cultural conflict is the correct term, which I should have used instead of warfare.

that's probably the reason why people have veered off onto talking about democracy than your actual topic. now that you clarified i can argue.

I don't really have control over that. Its the same story with every other thread. I won't say that people completely veered off to a new topic, democracy is a tool used to prevent cultural conflicts and actually it was me who introduced it into the thread. As I said, look at the larger picture.

okay so yes, cultural differences always lead to assimilation (or 'slow indoctrination' as you say), but it doesn't always lead to conflict.

Not me. This thread is not about me. Cultural conflict is not an idea that I have introduced or am writing a book about. It is a phenomenon as old as civilization itself. Forget, civilization it is prevalent in animals as well. I will ask you again to read on the subject and then comment. Otherwise it is just a waste of time and this whole debate will be a meaningless exercise. Is it too much to ask?

Cultural Conflict: From Wikipedia
"Cultural conflict is a type of conflict that occurs when different cultural values and beliefs clash. It has been used to explain violence and crime.
Jonathan H. Turner defines it as a conflict caused by "differences in cultural values and beliefs that place people at odds with one another". He defines this conflict as one that occurs when people's expectations of a certain behavior coming from their cultural backgrounds are not met, as others have different cultural backgrounds and different expectations.

Cultural conflicts are difficult to resolve as parties to the conflict have different beliefs. Cultural conflicts intensify when those differences become reflected in politics, particularly on a macro level. Ethnic cleansing is another extreme example of cultural conflict. Wars can also be a result of a cultural conflict; for example the differing views on slavery were one of the reasons for the American civil war.

In The Clash of Civilizations Samuel P. Huntington proposes that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world."

assimilation of culture isn't always one culture (the 'dominant' one as you say) completely taking over the other culture. it's a gradual process of combining two different cultures into one new culture. with a lack of conflicting interests, mutual acceptance, and well... time (and the occurence of these 3 factors aren't that rare. see: multiculturalism, as keiji pointed out), minorities needn't feel oppressed and dominant cultures needn't feel like they're being invaded. in such cases, xenophobic ghettos are not inevitable nor is genocide.

You speak as if multiculturalism is an absolute process. I am afraid that you will have to see beyond isolated examples such as Norway or any other country with low population and higher standard of living. I am getting the idea that you yourself come from a rich nation where such conflicts are rare. For example, a person coming from any S.E Asian, S. American, African or Middle-eastern Nation will find relevance with what I am saying immediately. Forget these Nations, Deathcom3s gave an example from USA in the post above. Infact, multiculturalism itself is a rare phenomenon which never lasts long. One generation may find solace in peaceful existence but the coming generations will inevitably at some point, take over the other culture and will try to stamp it out of existence. Cultural conflict is inevitable.

From Wikipedia
"...whether the multicultural ideal of benignly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, and yet remain distinct, is sustainable, paradoxical, or even desirable. It is argued that nation states, who would previously have been synonymous with a distinctive cultural identity of their own, lose out to enforced multiculturalism and that this ultimately erodes the host nations' distinct culture."

"In New Zealand (Aotearoa), which is officially bi-cultural, multiculturalism has been seen as a threat to the Maori, and possibly an attempt by the New Zealand Government to undermine Maori demands for self determination."

"Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade-long study on how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions," writes Putnam."

it's funny because the world isn't the eighth level of hell either. keiji mentioned norway, not to say that his country is the entire world, but that situations of cultural integration - like within norway - exist and thus your stance that cultural warfare is inevitable is wrong.

Don't thus, don't ergo, yet. I don't speak in absolutes and never will, as long as I have my wits. Norway is an isolated pocket of civilization in the nether regions of this world. For a topic such as cultural conflict, Norway cannot and should not be taken as an example and this is what I want Keiji and anybody else to understand. If we take Norway or even EU as an example then it is all hunky dory and there is very little to worry about. But the same cannot be applied to the rest of the world.
If I take it in another way then I as a person from the third world I can take it (what you and Keiji are saying) as an act to hegemonize the world according to the European World View. For which I am not willing to compromise.
Seeing a cultural conflict here comrade? You may say so