As you know, I’m not the biggest fan of multiculturalism and “diversity,” my views of which are pretty much in line with this post by John Derbyshire at Taki’s Magazine. Or perhaps I’d better say, I’m a big fan of multiculturalism, just at the global level, and that both American and Korean society have enough indigenous “diversity” — much of it threatened — without having to mass-import foreigners. Hey, I’m all for promoting the use of Iroquois and Cajun French… or Jeju Korean, for that matter.
No doubt with this partly in mind, a friend of mine sent me this thoughtful piece by Peter Underwood in the JoongAng Ilbo arguing for the need for multiculturalism (Roboseyo has also blogged it). Read it on your own — I cite this section because I found it intriguing:
In many ways, this homogeneity is one of Korea’s greatest strengths. Shared values create harmony. Sacrifice for the nation is a given. Difficult and painful political and economic initiatives are endured without discussion or debate. It is easy to anticipate the needs and behavior of others. It is the cornerstone that has helped Korea survive adversity.
But there is a downside, too. Koreans don’t understand their own culture. It is a giant blind side. Marshall McLuhan said, “I don’t know who discovered water, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a fish.” William Sinunu said, “The minority know more about the majority than the majority know about themselves.”
Koreans are immersed in their culture and are thus blind to its characteristics and quirks. Examples of group think are everywhere. Because Koreans share values and views, they support decisions even when they are obviously bad. Multiculturalism will introduce contrasting views and challenge existing assumptions. While it will undermine the homogeneity, it will enrich Koreans with a better understanding of themselves.
It’s an interesting argument. But it does beg a couple of questions. Does multiculturalism really give you a better understanding of you and yours? Does it improve groupthink? I grew up in one of the most multicultural societies on the planet, and only started to really realize I even had a culture when I left the United States. As for the groupthink, I’m not convinced multiculturalism rectifies this; in fact, it seems it simply creates several groupthinks — broken along racial/communal lines — were previously, there was only one.
{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }
It doesn’t create “several groupthinks” as long as the communities are always having to participate together — in local and national political debate, in state-run schools, and so on.
For me, the more important point is that you can’t keep the genie in the bottle. It doesn’t really matter whether multiculturalism is the best way forward, because it’s coming anyway. What’s interesting is what effect it will have. On that, I think Peter is certainly on the right wavelength.
This is an excellent post, as is the original article. Max, while ideally several groupthinks are not created, that usually does happen and it’s then exponentially more difficult to resolve conflict as to compared to a more homogenous group. Watch “Do the Right Thing” or “Paradise Now”.
But, when those several are clicking, they most likely make higher-quality decisions than more homogenous groups. The golden age of Andalusia is the best example I can think of off my head.
Right, the genie is out of the bottle and for best effects both locals and visitors, however long their stays, should all be as wise and flexible as possible so everyone gets the most out of the experience.
Perhaps you didn’t realise you had a culture until after leaving the States because the landscape wasn’t littered with banners trumpeting it.
I read often the foreigner population has surged, but has it increased to the levels reported? Numbers don’t lie, do they? Amongst these foreigners are the ethnic Koreans, who aren’t as foreign as the real deal the foreigner.
Many, if not most, of the Chinese foreigners are ethnic Koreans. Visit the immigration office and many of those carrying US and Canadian passports are ethnic Koreans, too. Sure, there are Thais and Vietnamese and Mongols, but who are they?
When Korea began importing its foreigners, who were industrial trainees, there was little made of multiculturalism. The word of the day then was saegyehwa, and at times gukjyehwa, which was code for Korea’s need to import the 3D workers to maintain economic competitiveness. Most of today’s foreigners are still these 3D workers. If it weren’t for the martial woes of Korean men I don’t think we’d being hearing much about multiculturalism.
Lastly, Mr. Underwood wrote this: “Unification with North Korea (which is beginning to look inevitable) will introduce sudden challenges to homogeneity.”
I wish he had expanded on it. Certainly ethnic homogeneity will not be affected; as a percent of population the nation will become more Korean. Their impact may very will be minimised by keeping them locked up north, which Seoul seems intent on doing. If factories are enticed or compelled to move north we may even see a significant drop in the number of foreigners in the south – the jobs have left. Once the celebrations stop and the costs are realised I reckon the Southerners will look on their brethren as Germany’s Wessies do the Ossies: rude, crude country bumpkins. This socio-economic disparity may well be the real challenge of multiculturalism. Will foreigner taxis solve that?
The problem with Korea and multiculturalism is mostly because of WHO comprises these immigrants. If a majority of these immigrants were of high caliber people such as ‘English teachers’, professionals, business people, scientists etc it would be no problem but a welcome addition, but the fact that 90% of these immigrants take up 3D jobs simply because Koreans no longer want them no more and that they are mostly of uneducated, menial labor providing Chinese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Filipino etc. Economists say that Korea needs these immigrants to fuel economic growth especially in undertaking these 3D jobs, but do we really need these immigrants that provide cheap menial labor to become permanent residents? This isn’t a problem with just Korea but all the aging rich nations. America has no problems with Mexicans taking up construction jobs and etc, its just that they drop babies and anchor down. America would welcome a Mexican engineer that is qualified and meets the criteria for lawful immigration, its just that the majority of these immigrants provide nothing but cheap labor. Herein lies the problem, Korea needs these immigrants for their cheap labor, but do not want them to anchor down. I understand that as a human being born in an impoverished nation such as Bangladesh would desperately want OUT of such conditions, Koreans and Korea in general don’t want these types to become citizens or even permanent residents of their homeland which is extremely logical and understandable.
In my opinion be it harsh and unjust perhaps, when these ‘migrant workers’ overstay their welcome the government must brutally evict them. There is an endless supply of cheap labor in this world, don’t let it settle and become your problem, let it float and then float off and be replaced by a new fresh wave.
Imagine what would happen to the 1 million migrant workers when unification occurs hypothetically. Mass deportation would be the answer to be readily replaced by ‘Koreans’ willing to do these 3D jobs.
Multiculturalism applies to nations such as America, Australia, New zealand (lol i live in Australia and can’t spell NZ), etc. Nations born through mass immigration are rightfully multicultural but a nations that trace back to primitive human migration, where your ancestors bones lay where you were born, being multicultural is not the NORM but an irregularity. Look whats become of Europe? Not saying that Europe is doomed and all that is wrong with Europe now is because of their multiculturalism but it is becoming a problem, and for a latecomer immigrant destination as Korea, just like in economics and business, there lies tons of examples to benchmark and be wary of. Korea does not want the problems the French have right now. Multiculturalism does not equal hordes of migrant workers. Even China has a problem with migrant workers of their own kind, Korea has a dilemma with migrant workers that they never even heard of a decade ago.
(Written and not proof read) lol
Just read seouldouts comment and many things i thought of you have written. Greatest joy in reading blogs is finding comments that you would have written your self and only require the click of the ‘like’ button. imo
Underwood’s piece is well-written but ill thought out.
On the factual level, as others already have noted, it doesn’t address the fact that the overwhelming number of “foreigners” in Korea are ethnic Koreans with other citizenships. They obviously aren’t quite “hallowed-bone” status, but they are still eligible and susceptible of ethnic salvation. Nor does it deal with the fact that the dominant ROKGOC policy regarding immigrants is to Koreanize and assimilate them – a different animal altogether from multiculturalism. So the article does not come to grips with the realities vis-a-vis the issue of whether Korea is in fact becoming multicultural.
Nor does it really address what rhetoric of multiculturalism really means – although he does hint at in his remarks about how Koreans like foreign guests, but not foreign residents. Isn’t it just the latest version of saegyehwa/gukjyehwa, which in addition to the coded message that a previous commenter has discerned therein for the importation of 3D workers also had the explicit object of polishing the provincial edges off Koreans so that they could function more effectively as reps for the mercantilist/export ambitions that still dominate Korean economic policy. That is, e.g., the primary rationale and the justification for the lavish funding formerly bestowed on the so-called graduate schools of international studies that proliferated at Korea’s better universities starting 20 years ago (other missions of which included pushing Korean studies into the academic mainstream and boosting Korean unis’ international rankings by attracting foreign students who wouldn’t have to learn Korean in the english-dominated GSIS ghettoes)
There are legitimate arguments to be made regarding the effects of multiculturalism and immigration policy, but listening to the likes of John Derbyshire making those arguments is absurd.
You can’t really take seriously an immigrant from Britain (who admitted being an illegal immigrant for half a decade), with a wife who immigrated from China, blather on with stuff like this:
Is massive, never-ending demographic change a “core American value”? Might objections to the Ground Zero mosque—the topic exercising Ms. Couric’s absurd grandiloquence—be inspired by something other than “fear” and “rage”? Perhaps by the beliefs that this is a good country; that it suits us; and that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different?
Yes, John. Given that your foreign ass, your wife’s foreign ass, and your two multicultural kids are part of that demographic change, and that there were certainly plenty of people that considered you and your family part of that other group you now claim “we” are now surrendering America to, you sound like a hypocritical wanker rushing to shut the door that allowed you into the comfortable “us” club and out of the castigated “them.”
Whether he realizes it or not, Derbyshire provided a perfect example of the phenomenon he claims to despise when he claimed that “we” would be better off as a country without women’s suffrage. Go ahead and run that idea by your average real American, and see if they’re willing to make that change and surrender that right for the likes of the immigrant Derb.
Yes, indeed, the genie is out of the bottle. I don’t believe Korea needs a multi-cultutal society to help it better understand itself. Korea could acquire this knowledge via other avenues. The real question is, would they listen? I agree Koreans are fairly blind to their own culture.
I’m a proponent of multiculturalism. Aside from all the problems it causes, I feel the benefits outweigh those problems. Something to consider : The top world PPP GDP’s (most powerful economies). 6 out of the ten are moderate to absolutely multicultural, China is itself multicultural, leaving 3 that are not:
1. U.S. – 2. China – 3. Japan – 4. India – 5. Germany – 6. U.K. – 7. Russia
8. France – 9. Brazil – 10. Italy
Is there any connection between multiculturalism and economic prosperity? If there is, would this be convincing enough that multiculturalism is worth the risk?
@8. If China counts as multicultural (as opposed to multi-ethnic) on your list, it’s hard to identify which of the others, save Japan, are not at least moderately so.
#8 Also, 6 (possibly 7 if you include Japan and even 8 and 9 if you include Germany and the UK) out of 10 are large in land mass, in addition to having large populations. There are other countries that have both and are not among the world’s most powerful economies, but any are in Africa, and formed by Europeans drawing lines on maps. Having large land mass then, would, in many cases (but not all) imply having diverse populations. An additional exception, like Japan, could be fairly homogenous Turkey, if it lives up to the optimistic expections of some of its proponents. And think of smaller nations that are multicultural, such as Belgium, and medium sized ones such as Malaysia – they don’t really seem to be going anywhere, do they? Generally, there are too many exceptions, both having diverse populations and not having them, to come up with a hard and fast formula.
Robert, I agree with all your points. Particularly, I had never considered the argument that the US already had enough indigenous diversity – a great point, too.
Personally, IMHO the US was not multi-c until post-1965. A bunch of English, Scotish, Irish, Dutch, French, German, etc, are not too different when compared to, say, NE Asian nations. The Athens, Rome, Jerusalem connection makes W. Europe more similar than many would like to admit.
Language, religion, and educational structures are strong cultural factors that allowed W. Euros to unite. It also helped that in the early days the English-speaking power brokers ensured unity in ways that would be considered completely and utterly racist today.
Perhaps… but perhaps not. To quote Lee Kuan Yew:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,369128,00.html
OK, let’s see:
China: Yes, China is an multiethnic state, but one dominated by the Han, who would probably be the first to tell you that Chinese prosperity is not due to sizable populations of Tibets and Uigars. Check that: Lee Kwan Yew would be the first to tell you… then the mainland Chinese.
Japan: A pretty homogeneous state that has spent much of the last few decades as the world’s No. 2 economy.
India: Yes, it’s the No. 4 economy in the world, and I’m not going to take anything away from their recent development. Still, it has a long, long way to go before being considered an example of economic prosperity, and if you can point to me how being fractured along a myriad of regional, linguistic and — perhaps worse of all — religious lines has helped India develop, you’re more astute than me.
Germany, U.K., France, Italy — All those states became prosperous states before mass immigration.
Russia — If Russia is your idea of economic prosperity, I hate to see what you think a disfunctional economy looks like. PS: Ask the Russians how multiculturalism is working out for them.
Brazil — see India
This pretty much leaves the US, but even in the case of the US, we had high economic growth between 1925 and 1965 with almost zilch immigration. I’d also argue that US prosperity is due to commonly held values — values, I should point out, shared with other English-speaking nations — than ethnic and cultural diversity. Hey, I’m proud of my Irish and German heritage, and sure, Irish and German immigrants have contributed greatly to American society, but the United States would still be a great country without German beer or St. Patrick’s Day, and I’ll assume the WASPS and Dutchmen who populated New York before the Morrison and Koehler clans got off the boat didn’t need a bunch of Mic Catholics and Krauts to teach them about their culture or point out their flaws.
Diversity is a by-product of American cultural and economic success, not its agent. A point lost on many U.S. government Equal Opportunity and Personnel Management gurus. The day we can hire, rate, or fire a government employee without taking gender, sexual preference, and ethnicity into account, the world will be a better place. As for those adding ‘diversity’ to Korea, one assumes that learning as much as they can about Koreans, so that they may better fit in, is mere common sense. The first generation will never be truly Korean, but those Korean clans who trace their ancestry back to non-Koreans (Vietnamese and Chinese, for example) are proof that subsequent generations can become Korean. True diversity isn’t about having the majority pander to you, but rather learning to adapt and fit in with the majority, even if you are ‘different’..
I think… if your society decides to commit demographic suicide then you have to embrace some level of multiculturalism.
Maybe if you have enough technology you can still commit demographic suicide and tell multiculturalism to take a hike. You’d need to build a lot of robots… like what Japan is trying to do…
http://www.allbusiness.com/population-demographics/demographic-trends-aging/11671329-1.html
I think I understand what John is trying to say here, but one must be careful with statements like the above.
Koreans don’t understand their own culture… Foreigners will “enrich” Koreans with a better understanding of themselves… blah, blah, blah. Yeah just like African and Middle Eastern immigrants have “enriched” European culture and given them a better understanding of themselves.
Let’s face it – “multiculturalism” is a euphemism for “cheap immigrant labor”. It’s seen as an economic necessity, not an ideal to aspire to. Europeans don’t wan’t it, Koreans don’t want it, Japanese certainly don’t.
There is great risk in shoving “multiculturalism” down the throats of historically mono-cultural societies. Just look at France with its ethnic slums and race riots. Some people would love to see that happen in Korea.
I have a Martin Scorsese movie to show you, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, and the great Daniel Day-Lewis.
THIS IS OH, SO SO TRUE.
Robert Putnam, the author of “Bowling Alone”, on diversity
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
Dogbertt,
Let me take you down memory lane a little bit more. The scene… From the movie “The Good Shepherd,” WASP CIA agent Edward Wilson is talking to Italian American mafia boss Joseph Palmi outside his Miami summer home sometime in the 1950′s:
Disclaimer: I do not prescribe to views expounded by the aforementioned dialogue.
US multiculturalism is tainted by historical baggage and ruined by purely economic driven mass diversity. Singapore is a better model for diversity than New York or LA.
Wang: if your society decides to commit demographic suicide then you have to embrace some level of multiculturalism.
Not a demographic suicide but a new equilibrium.
NK, I was referring to the low birthrates of most developed countries both in the East and West.
In my later years, I’ve come to realize that diversity is overrated in general, but especially more so where they champion it.
It’s like recycling. It should be a matter of necessity, not of principle.
@#13,
America’s diversity may be nominal – its diversity is not a true diversity; it’s more a university, but here’s the reason we call it a “melting pot.”
That said, I’m sure America has been empowered by its diversity and by its perception of itself as a diverse, multicultural, multiethnic nation. It’s been able to create an idealogy for itself as a meta-nation supported by its diversity; and it has been able to augment its powers, in a real practical sense, through the contributions of its diverse, talented people.
In other words, it’s a FACT that America has grown by the funelling of talents from its many different individuals. Think of all the people who have contributed to the American landscape, America’s consciousness of important images and values, its heros, its artists, and scientists. One captures the entire human race within it. That’s a tremendous skill set and America has it built-in — it’s a skill set, which, profoundly enough, I will add, is diverse but which at the same time contains itself within itself, as a sort of null set; diversity, as a source of pure friction, can also help a nation grow or mature.
As for Underwood and Korea, judging from the OP only, his analysis seems too black-and-white. True diversity is breeding grounds for faction. True. This not the diversity that’s going to help a small nation such as Korea grow. But I’m sure some sort of ‘functional diversity’ would be possible, a diverse unity, or more awkwardly, a university, or a way to consolidate strengths from diverse perspectives, genes, cultures can develop within Korea despite the ideological racialism at its core.
Diversity has a way of breaking down, I think. It can be malicious, as when it loses its equilibrium and gives way to usurpation, the mass influx of one people or one culture the effect of which is the very nullification of said diversity.
That’s my 2 anyway.
You make it sound like you are falling apart at the seams… hahaha!
I’ve read and re-read #12 several times, and I can’t figure out what so many disliked about it. Except for Brazil same same India it seems spot on to me.
@20: Thanks. That exchange was the highlight of an otherwise boring film.
Yes… it was like watching paint dry…
Multiculturalism works best when immigration used to be high but was cut off decades ago. Everyone’s used to all the other tribes and their funny clothes and smelly food because they all grew up alongside each other. There’s no monocultural FOBs or rednecks coming by pointing and laughing and spouting ethnonationalist slogans and messing up the vibe. There’s tensions between groups, sure, but no one’s trying to kill each other or assimilate each other.
Take Mauritius or Guyana or Suriname: blacks, creoles, dot-Indians, feather-Indians (except in Mauritius), Chinese, whites, etc. living side-by-side, passing down their own languages and religions and foods. The blacks don’t want to be Indians. They don’t want to turn in the Indians into imitation blacks either. Or vice-versa. No matter your race, you (hardly) work in a tourist trap resort or a bank full of offshore tax-evasion accounts, then after work you go drink rum and lie around peacefully, enjoying the tropical breeze and thanking God you weren’t born in overcrowded, impoverished, violent India or the African mainland.
“You’d need to build a lot of robots… like what Japan is trying to do…”
Wangkon, can you please stop bringing in Japan into every Korea related subject, where Japan has nothing to do with what we’re talking about? It’s really getting annoying.
Robert wrote:
“I grew up in one of the most multicultural societies on the planet, and only started to really realize I even had a culture when I left the United States.”
Well, I think this example really proves Underwood’s point – that you can’t really know yourself or your own culture if you don’t compare yourself with something different. There’s nothing like experiencing life as an ethnic and cultural minority to make you aware of how your own culture is different. Being a minority in Korea provides you with a whole new perspective.
Several of the earlier posts are only satisfied with applying the ‘multi-culture’ label to cases where cultures that are very different are thrust together, like Confucian and WASP cultures, etc. But it’s really all relative. A Chinese-Korean or Korean-American can still be seen as very different through the eyes of a Korean-Korean.
As for comparing present day China, US, Germany, Russia etc to determine if ‘multi-cultural’ correlates with ‘greatness.’ Kind of limiting just to look at the present I think. Let’s take a look at Chinese history. China was at its greatest when it was unified and multicultural, such as the Tang or Han Dynasties. China was multicultural from the start, when the Qin took over all of the other warring states. The Qin, under the first Emperor, tried to impose the Qin culture-centered legal system on all the other states, and the empire collapsed within 15 years. The Han, on the other hand, respected regional differences in their legal code – they lasted 400 years. The great cosmopolitan Tang Dynasty, had multi-ethic Emperors, Turk and Korean generals in its army, employed Japanese, Korean, and many other nationalities as Confucian government officials, loved Persian music, dance and food, and thrived, taking over territory which stretched into Afghanistan and lasting 400 years.
The US is really the only advanced industrial nation with a growing population – which is a measure of political strength, and will allow it to compete 100 years from now against the new superpowers: China and India. Why? Multicultural immigration, which was there from the start. All great empires, if they are to last very long, have to be multicultural.
There are core values of course, and the immigrants learn and assimilate, and also contribute. China had Confucianism and a merit based exam system. We too, should stick to a merit based, fair system for advancement, and dedication to democratic principles.
Japan’s homogenous culture will make it very difficult for that country to overcome its population decline, and Japan’s age of greatness is likely far in its past.
Present and future immigrants will continue to be America’s greatest asset.
The fact is that the people who push multiculturalism are quite often the people who push legalizing drugs and decriminalizing sexual and other perversions.
May not be a one for one matchup there; but how many of the multiculturalists are pushing Christianity on Muslim nations?
If you don’t like the culture, just leave. Find a place that makes you more comfortable.
And don’t let the door find your backside on the way out.
It must be a symptom of his hentai addiction.
Well consider what “Lirelou” correctly observes in #18 Diversity is a by-product of American cultural and economic success, not its agent. It is primarily economic activity that drives this. If one considers “multiculturalism” and Korea, they may also realize that the population of South Korea is declining so much that there are not enough Koreans to staff the mega projects like the Dubai-style Saemangeum project.
Like Dubai, South Korea will need to import foreign workers to run these places, thus real multiculturalism will likely come from projects like that — provided that they are actually carried out. When I think of such, it adds perspective to some of the suggested planning that comes out of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance though I really think they have some serious flaws in their planning (tearing apart the southern coastal region for the sake of tourism), they seem to be looking at a multicultural solution to project staffing in the future.
Well, perhaps. But then again, there are also the people who fight against multiculturalism because they happened to like legalized drugs and sexual liberty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn
I find that the so called “multiculturalists” are also the most likely to be the least tolerant toward cultural differences. They want to mold and shape the world to be like any other Western state, with its social values, political systems, mores, institutions, and even language (particularly English).
Now this is my idea of a MUST READ:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/opinion/01iht-edgregg.html?_r=1&ref=global
Former US Ambassador to Korea, and previously CIA station chief in Korea, Donald Gregg, questions (handling of?) Cheonan findings and thinks Carter’s trip was a good idea that would have been better if the Peanut did have an oppty to sit knee to knee with KJI!
Per #36, “multiculturalism” has its roots in economic activity but there is the political side of it which apparently can be used to justify positions both for and against it. Even now alleged opposition politicians (and even North Koreans) use nationalism as justification for their actions. The political uses of multiculturalism (or anything for that much) is generally repugnant. Having a system of justice that promotes justice and due process for all people, within the borders of any country, is more important than having explicit policies that directly address multiculturalism, IMHO.
Still, there should be a debate in any society over issues like this since defining one’s national character is an ongoing activity that will always be contentious, regardless of the country.
What “sexual and other perversions” are you referring to?
cm: : “Wangkon, can you please stop bringing in Japan into every Korea related subject, where Japan has nothing to do with what we’re talking about? It’s really getting annoying.”
Over the years at TMH, cm has been notably more nationalistic — be it Korean or Canadian nationalism — than Wangkon.
But the word “Japan” inevitably has a Cryptonite-like effect on the (normally fairly sensible) WK’s good senses in practically every debate. He would be better off forgetting that Japan exists for the next decade of his life.
“The fact is that the people who push multiculturalism are quite often the people who push legalizing drugs and decriminalizing sexual and other perversions.”
Sorry setnaffa. Late to the thread, I thought this expression HAD to be the work of Minjoke it was just that illogical and dumb.
I don’t mind quote unquote diversity; I just mind having it presented as an intrinsic benefit or social evil. It’s simply a fact of life, with which we can deal well or badly. My workplace, my portfolio, and my household garbage are all diverse.
I don’t see Korea turning into Yugoslavia anytime soon.
@ #12 Mr. Koehler,
Refering to the PPP GDP statistics, was the best example I could muster in stating an example of “prosperity” on this planet. I honestly don’t know of a better broad spectrum measure of prosperity for the worlds’ nations. One could argue the fine points of “prosperity” until we’re all decomposing.
#24 abcdefg states – “That said, I’m sure America has been empowered by its diversity and by its perception of itself as a diverse, multicultural, multiethnic nation. It’s been able to create an idealogy for itself as a meta-nation supported by its diversity; and it has been able to augment its powers, in a real practical sense, through the contributions of its diverse, talented people.
In other words, it’s a FACT that America has grown by the funelling of talents from its many different individuals. Think of all the people who have contributed to the American landscape, America’s consciousness of important images and values, its heros, its artists, and scientists. One captures the entire human race within it. That’s a tremendous skill set and America has it built-in — it’s a skill set, which, profoundly enough, I will add, is diverse but which at the same time contains itself within itself, as a sort of null set; diversity, as a source of pure friction, can also help a nation grow or mature.”
Not to mention all the other nations who thoroughly enjoy all the ideas and technologies that have arisen from this “skill set”. As an American myself, I’m not trying to “toot the preverbial horn”, but look at all the richness that has been created form the diversity in all multicultural societies. The negatives will always be there. Inter-ethnic/self contained violence, difference of opinion, war etc. is human nature and has stood the test of time. Diversity and the understanding of “other cultures” has not.
#31 dokdoforever,
I appreciate this point of view. Thanks. I guess it really is short- sighted to only view this subject in a contemporary light. If history teaches us anything, it’s ……….
cm and slim,
Mention of Japan and Korea, in relation to demographics decline, is relevant. Although both countries’ birthrate is similar Korea has the younger population, on average. So, what Japan is currently going through in terms of demographics there is a good chance that Korea may go through also. Pressure to develop advanced robotic technologies to compensate may become an inevitability for both countries.
You two appear to have misinterpreted my earlier comment as something negative about Japan. I did not mean what you may have thought I meant… or at least I did not have that intention.
I do like this topic. I’d be interested in exploring a few distinctions here — for example, diversity as a passive fact vs diversity as a shared ideology; functional diversity vs dysfunctional diversity; diversity in geographically large vs small countries; the difference between mulitcultural countries vs multiculturalist countries. There’d be an interesting typology worth sorting out and many factors worth considering.
I think diversity in America works. But if I praise diversity or multiculturalism here, it doesn’t mean I’d praise it elsewhere. Also, America’s multiculturalism isn’t absolute and is not impervious to ‘stability loss.’ It can be broken. America can become something else if its citizens aren’t careful.
I think there are absolutes here but certain people tend to misidentify what those are; also, those who oppose this former group tend to demonize their misidentifications and then misattribute a few things themselves. And then the topic becomes bolted together by a number of false dichotomies. It’s very, very interesting.
A nation, or a group of people with a common identity, endures far longer than a multi-ethnic state. Multi-ethnic states crash and burn, break up, wilt from within.
A commenter above used India without even considering the ethnic blood-letting there and that we have three countries rather than one.
A declining nation might try to use multi culturalism to address its weaknesses, but the result is increased weakness and division. A strong nation might get caught up in its own hubris, forget itself, and think that it can somehow defy history and human nature and be a successful, stable multi-ethnic empire – but it always fails.
The US has never been more diverse and has never been worse off.
“Multi-ethnic states crash and burn”
Almost all states, kingdoms, empires, etc, will crash and burn if given enough time.
If you want to build a long-lasting great power or empire, it’s got to be multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. Here’s a recent paper I chanced upon pointing out just how multicultural the Roman Empire was:
http://www.waseda.jp/prj-med_inst/bulletin/bull05/05_16kim.pdf
If you look at China’s 5,000 years of history you find the same thing, in the prosperity and greatness of their most multicultural, multiethnic dynasties.
Innovation and improvement take place through exposure to new ideas. Culture is the unwritten rules that govern human behavior in society. With exposure and competition, people will choose the best rules for running and organizing society – the best cultural norms.
Exposure to different norms may make some people uncomfortable. Adjustment is never easy, but it sure beats stagnation, isolation and irrelevance.
@47
Sure, innovation and improvement do happen from exposure to new ideas. But you dont need a multi-ethinic state for that. Certainly, the Japanese would tell you that. See Meiji Restoration.
Your shining example, China, does not make much sense either. I dont know the full 5000 year history, but the last 500 have been utter poverty, civil war, and internal strife.
Plus, can we really can a country that identifies as more than 90% Han Chinese multi-ethnic? And the two provinces that are not Han, Tibet and Xinjiang, want independent states.
As for the Romans, multi-culturalism definately helped diminish Roman cultural mores. It weakened the state and sped up its complete collapse. Besides a host of examples, consider when the empire was split. You know about the Greek-speaking Byzantines, right? Rome has to be the last argument for multi-culturalism.
I’m wondering if you could explain what you mean by “multiculturalism” and “diversity”.
I’m not trying to be overly provocative or get too personal, but you are an American living in Korea (long-term), you love the US but wear a hanbok and respect Korean culture, your wife is Mongolian (and you’ve demonstrated your respect and understanding of her culture in several posts), and you run a blog that expresses all kinds of different cultural perspectives, in all kinds of different languages.
All of this, I should emphasize, I think is wonderful. I’m glad you and your blog are here.
I may be a bit dim and not really understand what the term “multicultural” means, but from my perspective I’d look at you, your life and your work and say ‘hey that’s a great example of a multicultural individual with a lot to contribute to Korea, the US, and other cultures as well.’
I read through the essay you mention that by and large reflects your views and I’m still not able to put my finger on what irks you about the idea of promoting multiculturalism in Korea. Could you help me understand what about diversity and multiculturalism that you think is a bad idea for Korea?
Apologies if the example is too personal. Feel free to delete or ignore this comment if it’s not appropriate.
@ #46,47 and 48.
Is it really fair to compare the present and future idea of “multiculturalism” with historical “multicultural” societies. When considering how much different the world is today by comparison. The ancient Chinese, Greek and Roman societies were the stone age in comparison. The global economy and technology have completely changed how all people interact and live. I see the global economy as the major sticking point. All first world countries have a vested interest in each others stability. Financially speaking.
“Germany, U.K., France, Italy — All those states became prosperous states before mass immigration.”
Robert, I’m pretty sure all those romans, celts, angles, saxons, danes, norse, normans were immigrants and not returning expatriates.
Italy and Germany in particular were not even a country at the time of the “mass immigration” to which I assume you refer, but groupings merging and melding into the relatively uniform modern “german” and “italian” states we see now.
So, being serious the question arises what is multicultural. There have been waves of miigration over history and at the time the languages, religions, and cultures were quite different and ‘multicultural’ but merged and melded into a comparative ‘homogenous’ culture.
This is where I think Jim_Kim is misguided,
“Personally, IMHO the US was not multi-c until post-1965. A bunch of English, Scotish, Irish, Dutch, French, German, etc, are not too different when compared to, say, NE Asian nations.”
In 1965 there was no bunch of the above, there were ‘americans’ so of course you’re not going to see much difference. However, at the time of mass immigration before the melding into ‘american’ to say the above were not too different compared to NE asian nations is rather egocentric. You’ve got six nations mentioned, with 6+ languages, with two major branches of christianity, catholic and protestant, and some quite striking sub-divisions within those….and Mr Kim conveniently omit that were in fact many more countries, poles, russians, ukrainians, …… with their languages etc making up post 1965 ‘american’ not to mention chinese in cali, japanese in hawaii, and millions of africans also subsumed into the melting pot..
To paraphrase “The Mongol, Beijing, bhuddist, confucian, connection makes NE Asia more similar than many would like to admit.”
The Athens, Rome, Jerusalem connection makes W. Europe more similar than many would like to admit.
You don’t even need to go into much analysis – the basic premise placed of size and population was flawed from the beginning. Take UK about 2oth by population and as low as 80th by land mass….
“A nation, or a group of people with a common identity, endures far longer than a multi-ethnic state. Multi-ethnic states crash and burn, break up, wilt from within.”
As noted above, multi-ethnic states do not automatically crash and burn the can and do evolve over generations into a group of people with a common identity…
As a Han racial essentialist I have to question dokdoforever’s choice of using the Han and Tang dynasties as exemplars of multiculturalism. The Han dynasty is hardly an example of “ethnic” diversity and it was multiculturalism that doomed the Tang. The early Tang era is analogous to America, everyone starting coming when the going got good, they didn’t make the empire what it was. And just like the Roman empires failed attempt to assimilate migrating barbarian hordes, the Tang’s failed integration of it’s migrating barbarians ultimately ended up with a certain fat Sogdian Turk precipitating a civil war cum ethnic insurrection that destroyed the empire.
The problem is that while the gloriously cosmopolitan natives maybe playing the diversity game, the arriviste ethnics generally are more inclined to treat the game as a zero-sum spoils system.
Don’t even get me started about Singapore, white western expats might love it, but for the Chinese native it’s fast becoming an unbearable hell hole with a kleptocratic elite hell bent on wage suppression and demographically exterminating the host culture by importing obnoxious Indians by the plane load.
Arhgaeri,
You make some valid arguments.
But your analysis of the melting pot goes too far. Pre-1965 if one subtracts those of African descent, (I dont know the exact figure), my guess is that the percentage of Americans claiming Western Euro heritage would be in the high 90th percentile. Japanese, Chinese and others amounted to a very small number compared to the overall American population. Though African Americans are as American as apple pie, I doubt they would claim being part of the melting pot pre-1965 as slaves and then second-class citizens.
The point I agree with you on is that cultures can be amalgamated, but at what cost? Depending on the level rigidity within a given culture, it takes long periods of time, division, and strife, and drastic measures, and often blood letting to produce a new united culture.
The Berbers are a good example of a unified melting pot. The Berbers developed a unified identity out of hundred of tribes, and many races and religions. However, this took hundreds of years, numerous wars, and a foreign Islamic invasion (a strong man ruler) to eventually bind them all up and create the Berber a identity. Not a path I would take to achieve multi-c.
American has (had) an identity, a good one. We are at the point where to avoid chaos, Americans have to live under a strong man leadership. More government, severe laws, punishments, though control. Less freedoms, choices.
You want your multi-ethnic state, expect either chaos or a strong-man government for a very long time.
Apologies for all the erros in that post.
Jim_Kim I already noted eastern europeans also, and I noted “not to mention” in respect of japanese and chinese. As for the africans whilst their status may have differed, it does not take away from their presence and impact upon culture. Does the caste system in india render those third class ‘dalits’ at 16% of population as ‘not part of’ the melting pot that is the multicultural indian state. Rather I would say that this second class status and the later more enlightened treatment of blacks is very much a component in shaping the resulting ‘american’ culture.
In any case you avoid the main point, that you cite the ‘american’ descendant of those six counties as being similar, when their antecedents were far from it in language, religion and culture.
To repeat the paraphrase, you can just as easily argue, from ‘american-centric’ pov, rather than you NE-asian centric pov, that “The Mongol, Beijing, bhuddist, confucian, connection makes NE Asia more similar than many would like to admit.”
Jing –
Tang was brought down by the rise of powerful landed elites and the disintegration of the equal fields system, that deprived the state of revenue necessary to uphold the Tang military. The Tang responded by decentralizing authority to regional military generals, whose armies were self financed. General An Lushan took advantage of this delegated authority and attacked the Emperor, forcing him to flee to Sichuan province. The Tang held on, but only thanks to the Uighur Turks, who came in to subdue the rebels.
So, you, and Jim Kim, blame multicultural diversity for bringing down the Tang (and the Romans) eh? Well, you could blame any attribute of the Tang (or Romans) for bringing it down if you wanted, or any other dynasty for that matter, since they all eventually fall. That’s simply not a persuasive.
Consider that the Tang and the Romans were both long lasting, militarily powerful, economically vibrant empires.
Monocultural, homogeneous cultures, like Meiji, or Park Chung Hee S. Korea (or even Kim Il Sung N. Korea) might be good at playing ‘catch up.’ If there is a game plan they can copy, they may be good at mobilizing their people through a common culture. But they can’t lead – because that involves creative adjustment. Different ways of thinking, competition of ideas in a multicultural society is necessary to be a world leader and find the best norms.
India is not so much multicultural as it is diverse ethnically, linguistically and religiously. India’s divide is marked by cultural blocs: Northern, Southern and North Eastern. For instance: Malayalees, Tamils, Kannadigas and Telugus relate much closer to each other than to the Northerners, who likewise do the same among themselves.
The linguistic question has been settled after the North (dominant at the time) tried and failed to impose Hindi nationwide. All the major languages (and their associate ethnicities) were given their own states. The only questions that remains is the religious and that of the Northeast.
Arghaeri,
I did say you made good points. However, the Western European connections are much stronger than NE Asian ones. First, far more interaction, exchange, intermixing and intermarriage among royals and others in WEuro. French, Spanish, Italian (English is not too far off) are virtually dialects of Latin. This cannot be said for Korean and Japanese with respect to Mandarin. Anyone who has studied these languages knows how easy it is to pick up Spanish if you have Italian, but we know this is not true in NE Asia.
Second, there is nothing in China that compares to the Pope in Rome. The Catholic Church was much more involved in every days lives in W.Euro. in a variety ways. You have several religions in NE Asia. And merely one in Europe for a 1000 years or so.
Third, look at the European Union. You think we could have that in Asian today? No way. I don’t cite Dokdo and Japanese Imperialism as a reason why not; the W. Euros did much worse to one another.
In sum, you are right I downplayed the connection between NE Asia, but they are not as strong as those between W. Euros
Dokdo Forever,
Your examples of Japan and Korea are perfect. They have perisisted through the ages. Korea should have been swallowed up.
Historians who recorded Rome’s final days and many today, often note how Rome was not Rome and Rome did not know herself by the time of the collapse, etc. The Roman civilization is, indeed, gone.
You should consider that identity is a primary source of human happiness that is related to home, community, and other deep bonds. We may get annoyed (I certainly do) with Koreans’ strong affliation with identity but it is a source of strength for them. It gives them a sense of community and they always know where home is; where their land is.
I think you missed the key part of dokdoforever’s point:
“Monocultural, homogeneous cultures, like Meiji, or Park Chung Hee S. Korea (or even Kim Il Sung N. Korea)”
You can’t really compare countries like that to large, multi-ethnic empires like Rome, Tang, USA, etc. That’s just silly.
Max (#49), I think one might look at it that way…but if I may add two cents here:
I think the life—especially the multicultural aspect of it—in the above description is that of an expatriate who went out of his/her way—by leaving his/her native country—to experience different ways of life in other communities which may not necessarily be multicultural and diversity-friendly.
In the process, s/he could have learned to appreciate local culture (e.g., traditional attires), had a chance to meet and eventually marry a wonderful person—another expatriate of a country different from his/her own—and developed a positive, long-lasting impression toward a host country so as to decide to take up residence in that country.
In short, the above exposure to cultural diversity is what one can attain without having to live in a single multicultural society eager to adopt diversity by, for instance, deliberately allowing an extensive infusion of various peoples—and the folkways that they bring to that society.
I should add, though, that whether promoting multiculturalism in a society does more good/bad is a separate matter worth considering, and of which is also worth reaching a conclusion.
OK, let me put it this way: I shouldn’t expect Koreans to respect my language or cultural norms, but I should fully expect Koreans to enforce their language and cultural norms onto me as long as I choose to live in their country. I would also say that while importing small number of people like me might be helpful and economically necessary, depending on the situation, importing large numbers of people like me is culturally destructive and harmful to social integration and harmony.
Tiny Flowers,
I hope that was not his point. You can’t say with a straight face that multiculturalism produced great empires such as Rome.
Historically, multi-culturalism FOLLOWS the success of a nation or people. Certainly this is the case with Rome.
Again, once these nations become multi-ethnic, they lose their character, ie. what makes them great. We also note that much of Rome’s multicultural people’s within the empire were deeply dissatisfied as with those in many other empires. With multi-c eveyone suffers.
If you want multi-c, take your pick: strongman leadership or chaos.
That’s not my point at all. My point is that multiculturalism isn’t a universal value. Some countries do great with it. Some countries don’t need it and don’t want it. It’s ironic that multiculturalists want to impose the same set of values on everyone.
Jim_Kim
You’re still playing the selective game, and a bad one at that, comparing the EU of today with the europe that existed when the melting pot in the US was created, and on the basis of intermarriage between a handful of royals,…hilarious…. and selective choice of romance language, ignoring all others, and trying to claim english as one of them….you really need to brush up on linguistics. On your logic when 50% or more of korean words are of sino origin, what does that make korean…. we’ll forget that your original selective bunch of English, Scotish, Irish, Dutch, French, German, included only one romance country, but two plus romance languages, six plus west-germanic, two goidelic, one brythonic, and an isolate, and thats ignoring all the nations and languages which you continue to avoid in your quaint assessment that all those in the US were of common stock.
” You can’t say with a straight face that multiculturalism produced great empires such as Rome.”
“You can’t really compare countries like (S. Korea, N. Korea, and Japan) that to large, multi-ethnic empires like Rome, Tang, USA, etc. That’s just silly.”
Well, I’ve got a straight face and I am comparing great empires to smaller states that failed to become great empires. And I do believe that multiculturalism contributes to building a great empire, and is not simply an outcome of empire.
I’m not an expert on Rome, but I do know something about the Tang. The royal family was actually of mixed blood heritage – from Han Chinese and Xianbei (a nomadic C Asian group) background. The social structure, bureaucratic system, legal system, and economy were inclusive, and obviously made it much easier for the Tang to rule and incorporate previous foreign people’s within their empire.
What are the alternatives to running an multicultural empire? Exlusion, subjugation, and repression of foreign peoples I suppose. That system doesn’t work quite as well. The Mongols ran China that way and were overthrown after 85 years. The Qin ran China that way and lost power after 15 years.
Look at the recent example of the Japanese in E Asia prior to WW2 – how much animosity and hatred they inspired (and still inspire), from Korea to China to Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia. Even if the US hadn’t defeated them, their homogenous, exclusionary culture would have made it tougher to construct an empire able to last hundreds of years.
As I mentioned before – there need to be some core principles to maintain the system, sure. But not so many that others are excluded – the goal should be inclusion.
As for the points about the advantages of identity and unity – there are plenty of different cultural norms that can provide a given group of people with an identity for them to unify around, but the group will lose out if its culture is so complicated and esoteric to exclude all outsiders.
Humanities greatest talents are spread throughout the planet, not confined to any one ethnic, religious or national group. If your group wants to share in those abilities, it must trade for them, either through an exchange of goods or people. Somewhere along the line there will a human interaction. Clearly the society that is best able to incorporate people from different cultures will also be the society that is best able to share in the widest diversity of human talent and skills.
So, what is your take on other foreigners who have chosen, like you, to live long-term in Korea?
Arghaeri,
You are right. I am not a linguist. But you clearly have not studied languages much.
W. Euros often know 2-3-4 languages well enough to speak, read, write and this is not because they are smarter than other people. How about Dutch, German, English, French? Along with the Greek, Latin connection that includes thousands of common words in those languages, consider how much those languages have influenced each other. Certainly you have heard of the Romans in England, Norman Conquest, etc. You know the Saxons were a German tribe, right? There are too many examples.
You might point to Japanese and Chinese conquests, but the bottom line is learning English if you are Dutch, French, or German is a cake-walk comapared to Koreans attempting Chinese. You will note not many Koreans speak Chinese well, even when they live in China for a long time.
The Sino roots help somewhat. Koreans have their own script (BTW W. Euros use the same script) and Sino roots have completely different sounds. Admittedly, some words sounds similar and there are some clear connections, but nothing like W. Euro languages have with one another.
Dokdo,
You go too far. I am not saying subjugate foreigners. Ideally, multicultural groups would constitute no more than 5% or so of your population. This way you could take on a few refugees and people with real, useful skills. Your culture would not be threatend or overburdened. I think, too, people would have a greater appreciation for foreigners in this way. And, these numbers would make it possible to actually integrate the newcomers.
In our interconnected world, you sure as hell dont need multiculturalism to have access to new ideas, diversity, and thinking.
Regarding the Marmot, here is a guy with deep interest and respect for culture and different people, a perfect person to espouse multiculturalism. Because even he has serious doubts about it, maybe he has some good reasons.
I would love it if multi-c worked. I get on with different cultures better than my own much of the time. But I am not going to pull the wool over my eyes.
“I am not a linguist. But you clearly have not studied languages much.”
“You knew Saxon’s were a german tribe, right?”
Damn I must of missed that, when I put “six-plus west-germanic” languages, how on earth could I have forgotten to mention english!
I am a west euro, I’ve studied many languages and I’m crap at all them, but then that has little to bearing on linguistic theory, and I’m really struggling to believe you can dig deeper…or make me laugh more… maybe by the weekend I’ll have time and will have recovered enough to respond….
You could start though, by giving me examples of these numerous two hundred year old western euros that you’ve met, who speak irish gaelic the predominant language of the irish immigrants to the americas, in particular during the famine. In your continued comparison of the europeans of today, rather than the europeans who made up the melting pot in the formation of america.
Arghaeri, let me make it really simple for you.
When compared to a Korean learning Chinese, all of the following nationalities find it enormously easier to learn English:
German-English
Dutch – English
Anywhere British Isles – English
French – English
All far easier than any NE Asian attempting Chinese.
You can throw out all the crap theory you want, but it has to represent reality, which is if you go to any of the aforementioned countries you find incredible English ability (exception France for lack of effort).
Now, despite Korea’s historical bonds with China as well as having the largest foreign student population studying Mandarin in China, few Chinese speakers exist here.
You might point to English’s dominance as the reason for proficiency in the countries I mentioned; however, the high level of proficiency they have when compared to other areas of the world as well as resources used in language education shows that there are clearly some huge advantages for them.
“You can throw out all the crap theory you want, but it has to represent reality, which is if you go to any of the aforementioned countries you find incredible English ability (exception France for lack of effort).”
Which crap theory was that, that most of the irish immigrants in the ‘melting pot’ didn’t speak the languages of which you speak but gaelic, please elucidate?
When you leave the US please let me know because I’m pretty sure you haven’t seen this incredible ability amongst the normal masses in europe. Perhaps, you like to cite statistics and facts rather than just bluster, and yes the fact that english is the lingua franca in international business does make a difference as does the fact that all the countries of which you speak typically teach english from a young age.
You might also want to explain how the koreans lost the ability to learn japanese, plenty of them spoke it during the occupation, and for that matter chinese plenty of them manged to read and write chinese when it was still a requirement of the civil service exam….and was the lingua franca in trading and diplomacy for centuries….as yes how did you put it for the french ….lack of effort…
Instead of some bluster why don’t you put up some sound linguistic theories for your claim that korean are inherently crap at north east asian languages such as chinese and japanese despite over 50% of words in korean being chinese origin, a fraction less than 50% chinese origin words in japanese.
Koreans have their own script, yes but, the dominance of hangul is relatively recent, hanja is still in every day use in korea, though much less than when I cam here in the mid-90′s. I see it every day, including reports from my own department…
A korean celebrity wanting to make it in Japan has no problem mastering the language in a year(or two) of intense training. Japanese and Korean languages are so very similar in terms of grammatical structure and expressions that once past the initial scripts it’s very easy to learn each other. Chinese might be a little different with its own grammar.
On the other hand, plenty of (former) East Germans cannot speak a word of English. The notion that French cannot/don’t speak English compared to the Germans is also quite outdated. Plenty of German everyday words are surprisingly nothing like their English counterparts.
The biggest factor in all this is lack of exposure (whether they have dubbed TV shows or subtitled ones)
Not that any this has anything to do with my rebutall of you original premise, “IMHO the US was not multi-c until post-1965″, on the basis that at the TIME of the melting pot things were very different from the modern europe of today where the masses are educated in different language in school, are connected by satellite TV, internet etc.
Not to mention your inferred basic premise that “culture” is base on language alone.
You still have not managed to come up with anything at all to demonstrate the unique innate ability of europeans to speak all the languages of the immigrants, even just of your narrow selection of six countries, irish gaelic, scottish gaelic, scots, english, occidental, french, basque, breton, dutch, frisian, lower german, and upper german. [We'll forget, as you continue to do, all those others, russians, poles, ukraines, czechs, greeks, slovaks, yids, norwegians, finns, swedes, danish, georgians, armenians........etc etc, and thats just europeans...since you've already dismissed the millions of blacks, chinese, japanese etc... fas having any culture...]
Even the closest of those countries (excl.scots) languages to english, frisian has been mutually unintelligible from english for centuries, and sharing a script aside (which korea did for centuries with china and japan) isn’t much use when a huge chunk of those huddled masses were illiterate. [We'll forget as you continue to do all those eastern european countries which use cyrillic and not roman script]
We’ll also forget your notion of shared the shared ‘roman religion’ as a close cultural tie, compared to numerous north east asian religions, (please elucidate) given that the melting pot mixed catholics, jews, protestants, and orthodox who have been warring each other for centuries in europe – and still are in parts.
#77 Exactly Yuna….thx
The grammar is the main difference in chinese as modifiers to indicate past/future tense etc are I understand not much of an issue. Whereas in japanese and to a lesser extent in korean, where the grammar is similar kanji/hanja represent the stem and require agglutinative native modifiers to indicate past, future etc tense.
“You have several religions in NE Asia. And merely one in Europe for a 1000 years or so.”
Ok, I’ll go with europe you do NE asia, in the last thousand years, since you will likeley include
animism/druids
celtic polytheism
norse polytheism (many days of the week are still named for pagan gods)
pantheism/stoicism
roman catholic
protestant
orthodox
islam (ottoman empire, spain, sicily)
judaism
atheism, agnosticism, humanism (secular but ideology nonetheless)
latterly, bhuddist, sikkh, hindu
What facts and stats have you noted? You rely on obscurities to make your points.
Until the Reformation, Catholicism completely dominated for a very, very long time. Even after that, you had Catholics and break-away sects of the same religion (protestants). Obscure religions such as Druids, Norse Polytheism, etc. have nothing to do with anything when you consider that nearly everyone in Europe were Catholics until the P. Ref.
So the dominance of Christianity in W. Euro holds, while in NE Asia Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, ancestor worship, etc existed in large numbers while Jews and Druids, comparatively, consisted of miniscule numbers in W. Euro.
The religious, linguistic, and historical links(with regard to intermixing) are substantially stronger in W. Euro than NE Asia. Yes, cultural links exist in NE Asia as in other regions of the world but nothing like the cultural bonds between W. Euros.
As for language, we would do well to consider the 2-3000 cognates shared by West. Euros. Any Westerner who puts forth a bit of effort can gain a basic working knowledge of a W. Euro language very quickly.
Though Koreans have words with Chinese roots, they are not cognates and Chinese is entirely different from Korean. Many Koreans acutally consider English to be easier than Mandarin, which doesnt say much except that language similarities are most certainly stronger between W. Euros.
Your one of those guys that preaches about how to learn and study language but cant speak them, arent you?
You’re
Nations worse off with mulitculturalism:
France: riots, massive crime spikes, racial tension, Burka bans
USA: loads of problems, but basically the electorate tells the story more every year with more and more whites voting Republican and everyone else voting Democrat
Balkans – Yugoslavia : never ending war, death
Australia and Canada: ethnic gangs, highest crime rates ever, spike in hate-groups, etc
England: extreme racial tension, riots, legal battles (sharia), ethnic gang fighting
Central Asia: despite being split into numerous countries; ethnic riots, fighting, killing, political divisions, constant threat of war in Fergana valley
Afghanistan: constant ethnic war
China: terrorism, riots, govt crackdown, human rights abuse anywhere that is not Han Chinese – Tibet, Xinjiang, Yunnan
And these are just off the top of my head.
Well… this is controversial:
http://vdare.com/sailer/100912_new_synthesis.htm
I don’t agree with it, but at least it’s intelligently written.
WK, thanks for posting that. Sailer’s take is predictable, but the Geoghehan book looks like it’s worth a read.
“Your one of those guys that preaches about how to learn and study language but cant speak them, arent you?”
Where was this preaching on how to learn and study – pray tell!!
See comments above – and this time utilise some reading comprehension skills.
You having real trouble comprehending even you own points, let me remind you…the last words in your sentence mean going back to approx 1,000AD.
“You have several religions in NE Asia. And merely one in Europe for a 1000 years or so.”
Now suddenly, its well I did’t mean that I only mean’t the bit the chunk of the last 1000 years which fits, after the complete conversion of northern europe to christianit, and before the reformation, so by mere one religion for a thousand years or so I really mean’t the 400 years or so between approx 1,100AD and 1,500AD.
Oh, but of course the reformation pre-dates the multi-cultural melting pot pot in the USA, so the oneness of religion doesn’t figure after all.
Again I will remind you of your posited opinion, I will doubly note the H.
“IMHO the US was not multi-c until post-1965″
You have provided nothing at all to demonstrate that the melting-pot period of mass immigration into the US was not multi-cultural, you merely denying inclusion of anyone outside a handful of western countries you think fit your theory, ignoring all the other nationalities and languages that don’t fit you theory; and limiting culture to “language” and “catholicism”.
In sum your only argument is that Western Europeans have no culture, and that anyone else not western european doesn’t count anyway.
Great argument!!
Correction,
Now suddenly, its well I did’t mean that I only mean’t the bit the chunk of the last 1000 years which fits, after the complete conversion of northern europe to christianity, the complete conversion of south-western europe from islam, the never completed conversion in south eatern europe and before the reformation, so by mere one religion for a thousand years or so I really mean’t the zero years or so between approx 1,500AD and 1,500AD.
You’d do well to apply reading comprehension skills before writing your nonsense. You’ve done your best to twist and weazel around the basic facts.
You’ll note, too, that adjustments on time period were meant to help our friendly discussion move forward, but clearly,you are not interested in accepting any concessions for the sake of argument. You’d rather write 50 debatable comments in protest.
Let me put this in the easiest of terms so that you understand my argument.
The US was not multicultural pre-1965.
1. Western Europeans definately have a culture, roooted in Athens (education, philosophy, govt, language), Rome (education, phil, govt, architecture, language), and Jerusalem (religion, education, language).
Sorry, but I dont think we can count the Druids as having a significant enough impact on Western civilization, especially when next to these three monsters. Yes, there are others, but these three are Western Civ.
2. The overwhelming majority of Americans before 1965 came from Western Europe. And, during the colonial period up to about the early 1900s, almost everyone was British Isles, German, French, Dutch, North Europe. Yes, there were Chinese, Jews, and others, but as a percent of the total population, too insignificant to rely on their numbers to prove mulit-c.
3. For the B. Isles,Germs and others I mentioned above, we see numerous cultural similarities. That is, if you are one who believes that the MAIN drivers of culture are religion, language, customs.
Let’s look at them. They are all Christian, mostly different Protestant sects, but Christian to the core. They share thousands of cognates derived from Greek, Latin, the Bible. These are written in the same script and pronounced very similarly. Before arriving in the US, they have been intermixing and influencing one another for a very long time (Id put a number here but you derail the discussion).
Maybe, too, we should define our respective definitions of multi-c.
You seem to want to apply mulit-c too liberally, in which case you can divide up anyone, anywhere.
How can I twist around the basic facts when you have provided none.
Reading comprehension 1,
“We’ll forget that your original selective bunch of English, Scotish, Irish, Dutch, French, German, included only one romance country, but two plus romance languages, six plus west-germanic, two goidelic, one brythonic, and an isolate,”
Response, “You knew Saxon’s were a german tribe, right?”
Reading comprehension 2,
“I am a west euro, I’ve studied many languages and I’m crap at all them, but then that has little bearing on linguistic theory,”
“Your one of those guys that preaches about how to learn and study language but cant speak them, arent you?” [No such comments cited]
Reading comprehension 3,
“irish gaelic the predominant language of the irish immigrants to the americas, in particular during the famine”
What facts and stats have you noted? You rely on obscurities to make your points. [Its of interest that you consider the fact of over half the population of ireland dying, with over one million irish emigrating to america in a few years, the majority of whom spoke gaelic, to be an "obscurity", one which you continue to avoid since it rather inconvenient to your idea that there is only one culture in western europe.]
[For comparison approx US population at that time 20 million]
1) Western Europeans definately have a culture,
a) roooted in Athens
i) education – explain?
ii) philosophy – explain?
iii) govt – explain?
iv) language – explain?
b) Rome
i) education – explain (surely you mean Athens)
ii) philosphy – explain (surely you mean Athens)
iii) govt – explain (surely you mean Athens)
iv) architecture – explain
c) Jerusalem
i) religion – explain (surely you mean Rome)
ii) education – explain (surely you mean Rome or is it Athens)
iii) language – explain (aramaic or perhaps you mean Athens or is it Rome).
d) Sorry, but I dont think we can count the Druids as having a significant enough impact on Western civilization, especially when next to these three monsters. Yes, there are others, but these three are Western Civ.
Explain (sorry but your complete ignorance of northern european culture does not permit you a mere dismissal with a shake of you imperious roman/greek hand.
Please explain, why if North European language and religions have so little impact, the christian tradition has adopted so many “pagan holidays”.
I’m really sorry to break it to you but Christmas is a pagan holiday, embraced and adapted by christianity to avoid direct confrontation.
Similarly, it may have escaped your notice but the easter bunny doesn’t figure much in the early bible.
Please explain, why if they have so little impact, does the world not speak aramaic, greek, or italian but English a west-germanic language.
Please explain why, if so little impact, the romance languages (or greek or aramaic), are not dominant anywhere in northern europe, nor in the east except romania.
Please explain if so little impact, the mythology and folklore of northern europe is full of leprechauns, goblins, trolls, withes, warlocks, why we still kiss under the mistletow, celebrate all hallows eve (transl. Halloween) etc.
Why the days of the week are named for pagan symbols and not christian ones.
2. The overwhelming majority of Americans before 1965 came from Western Europe. And, during the colonial period up to about the early 1900s, almost everyone was British Isles, German, French, Dutch, North Europe. Yes, there were Chinese, Jews, and others, but as a percent of the total population, too insignificant to rely on their numbers to prove mulit-c.
If this is the basis of your definition, then the US is still not multi-cultural in make up. All of those countries had their own ethnicity and culture, but you continue to deny “culture” to whites of different ethnicity. The fact that you can only identify between “white” and “black” culture outside asia, but at the same time can accept multiple ethnicity inside asia, is I’m afraid a product of your own internal issues.
Hmm, so now you’re discarding the spanish as well as getting on for 4 million “coloureds” out of about 23 million population in 1850 these are not insignificant percentage.
3. For the B. Isles,Germs and others I mentioned above, we see numerous cultural similarities. That is, if you are one who believes that the MAIN drivers of culture are religion, language, customs.
What exactly is your point, you can see numerous similarities now, we can see numerous cultural differences also, even more so going back in history.
Anyone can see numerous cultural similarities in east asia, anyone can see numerous similarities between numerous countries according to their proximity and shared history. How exactly is it that despite the historical subservience to china, the shared sino ideograph writing system, the shared influences of bhuddism, confucianism etc, the historical exhange of peoples and ideas…. you can see the “clear” unique cultures of eastern asia, but use the same principles to dismiss that there can be any “culture” in europe beyond the monoculture you imagine. Particularly, since you appear never to have experienced european cultures, or for that matter I suspect of first hand experience of asian culture outside of the US centric “minority” hand-me-down variety.
“Let’s look at them. They are all Christian, mostly different Protestant sects, but Christian to the core. They share thousands of cognates derived from Greek, Latin, the Bible. These are written in the same script and pronounced very similarly. Before arriving in the US, they have been intermixing and influencing one another for a very long time (Id put a number here but you derail the discussion).”
The Spanish, French and the Catholics have disappeared again, along with all the east european orthodox. Before arriving in the US the koreans, japanese and koreans had been influencing one another for a very long time (I’d explain, but I think you’d derail the discussion by insisting Bhuddism and confucianism and Hanja came to korea via the philippines)
“They share thousands of cognates derived from Greek, Latin, the Bible. These are written in the same script and pronounced very similarly.”
You prove again you have never been to europe, if you seriously think all these cognates are pronounced similarly. e.g Nacht/Night/Nuit.
Lets try a comparison, Konbae/Ganbei/Kampai far more similar sounding but of course according to you, any cognates in east asian languages or other similarities in culture (chopsticks anyone) are inconsequential whereas any similarities in european are enormous evidence of the same culture.
I mean why is it you’re not attempting to link in western asia with europe at the same time, since linguistically our languages mostly derive from ancient indo languages, and we mixed and were influenced with huge amounts of asians, huns, mongols, etc.
Ah, but that would be inconvenient wouldn’t it since Korea was also influenced by mongols, so there we have it clear evidence that korean culture and european culture are one!!
Maybe if I can summon the patience, Ill respond to your comments over Chuseok, but it is going to be difficult.
Very tough discussing this issue when you can’t even see the most basic premise, which Western Civ. is rooted in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem, especially since almost all scholars on the subject agree on that.
And do me a favor. Dont make it personal. I have lived, worked, and studied around the globe, including Europe and Asia.
And, dont play the race card. How pathetic. I am certainly not calling Russian and Eastern Euros part of Western civ.
In case you’ve forgotten the subject was not the roots of “Western Civilisation”, but was your denial of multiple cultures in the US prior to 1965. [further undeniable influence on different cultures does not render them non-existant] Your continued shifting of the base point, because you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever that only one culture existed in the US prior to 1965, is really the problem here.
Your plaintiff about please don’t make it personal is a bit rich given you made it so some time back, “Your one of those guys that preaches about how to learn and study language but cant speak them, arent you?”
Also I merely noted you appear to have little experience of europe, since if you had one would expect you to recognise the differences in language, religion and culture. This hardly equates to your personal attack above which was without any foundation at all.
The “race card”, I don’t recall calling you a racist merely observed you own continuous marginalisation of anyone from anywhere other than than a handful of western european countries as having been part of the US melting pot. Your total dismissal of the african populations, eastern european populations and others as “insignificant”.
You continue to see similarities in western civilisation as sustaining only one culture, but are able to see similarities in eastern civilisation as sustaining many cultures. You are able to dismiss european languages, during the melting pot period, as all the same despite the fact that you are clearly unaware of the number and breadth of such languages. The fact that there were at least seven languages and varied cultures in the british isles alone during that period, let alone the rest of europe, is completely beyond you comprehension, as evidenced by you continued avoidance of such issues, by instead raising ridiculous falsehoods such as there only being one religion in europe for the last thousand years, then modified to one religion prior to the reformation which was equally false, and also somewhat irrelevant since the reformation occurred prior to the major periods of immigration onto the US.
Further, why are russians and eastern european no longer part of western civilisation, is it because they’re slavs. Do you consider them part of eastern civilisation?
You must log in to post a comment.