Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Culturalism vs Racism 48

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42
I'm begining to wonder about one of my fine lines that I refuse to cross. I admit to being prejudiced- I think most people are, especially those who claim not to be. But I'm a culturalist, as opposed to a racist- I like the culture I was born and raised in, and rather dislike "foriegn" cultures from other states; let alone other countries. Especially when, as in the so-called "war on terror" or "war to take over the middle east for capitalistic reasons" or whatever you want to call it, most of the combatants come from *dangerous* foreign cultures, ones that I do not trust to stay away from Oregon (especially not the one that seems to act as if LA, Washington DC, and New York City are the slave masters to the rest of the United States).

Yet, when I write about my mistrust- most other people seem to mistake this cultural paranoia for racism. They all claim that most anti-immigration people are really racist, for instance, where I see them as being CULTURALIST, if in a rather protective fashion. Even other opposing culturalist groups seem to make this mistake, for instance La Raza, the pro-immigrant group, paints themselves as racist in their very name.

So, is being against selfishness and greed and the violent cultures that perpetuate the seven deadly sins really be racism in disguise? Or does the recognition that a baby can be raised in a different culture and turn out completely differently destroy racism?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Culturalism vs Racism More

Culturalism vs Racism

Comments Filter:
  • ...selfishness and greed and the violence...

    These are components of human nature, manifested in most cultures of the world. (Even in the culture that comprises mass opinion in the US) One cannot wipe them out from all cultures simultaneously, and those cultures that abandon those "values" before others risk being overwritten on the videotape of history.

    I would rather my culture continue to exist. I don't demand that it be the only one, but I do want it to be the dominant one wherever I'm living.
    • I'd like it to be the dominant one- but I still feel there is *some* room for tolerance. That room for tolerance ends, however, when they force me to adopt their language and customs just to get by from day to day. Which is why La Raza is not on the same side I am.
      • I don't have to learn Spanish. However, I've always wanted to; It can be just plain fun to surprise someone by speaking with them in a manner they're more comfortable with. Plus, it shows respect.

        So I've picked up smatterings of Spanish, Chinese, German and Vietnamese. (Though my Vietnamese is slipping...most of those coworkers have gone on to higher colleges.)
        • I don't have to learn Spanish. However, I've always wanted to; It can be just plain fun to surprise someone by speaking with them in a manner they're more comfortable with. Plus, it shows respect.

          I'd learn Castelian, but never Mexican. Showing respect for them would be a lie for me- I can't respect a people who have allowed culturalism to become ingrained to the point where they can't even assimilate their own natives, let alone assimilate when they move to a new land. It's the reason why Mexico is in t
          • Most of my Vietnamese coworkers' parents were evacuated from South Vietnam. My coworkers speak English about as well as I do--better, in some cases. But you can tell by their accents they were raised in homes whose primary language was Vietnamese.

            One other thing I've noticed...they all study more than I do.
  • They're really just two different flavors of bigotry [die.net]. One alternate definition of that reads as follows:

    A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
    religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
    opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
    or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
    intolerant of opinion

  • And I don't especially like self-identified "white people." Buncha cold fish.
    • I can't call myself white. My skin is, but my bloodlines simply aren't. 25% Hebrew, 25% German, 25% English, sure, but the rest is a mix of American Negro Slave, American Indian from 4 different tribes, and French Canadian.

      The only thing I can say for sure is that I'm a Gonie- a native born Oregonian.
  • Even other opposing culturalist groups seem to make this mistake, for instance La Raza, ...

    It's not a mistake, it's on purpose. It's a favorite Liberal tactic to confuse things and puff up through fakery the importance and popularity of their individual pet causes. So they try to fool people into believing that whatever La Raza's radical agenda is, is not just supported by that group of radicals, but by all Latinos everywhere. The National Organization of Women wants you to believe that they're for what wom
    • Or for that matter- to tie it to recent news events- the culture that cheers as long as their enemy is being killed even when the same rockets are falling on their heads in the West Bank (thanks to Hezebollah not really caring about anything as mundane as a guidance system).
  • I think "aggressively xenophobic" is closer to the mark.

    You'd rather kill off a couple billion people [slashdot.org] than attempt any lasting accomidation with them, or even defensive isolation from them. (Even though defensive isolation is eminently achievable on both a personal and national scale.) That's so monstrous that it sounds like some silly fiction. [wikipedia.org] Yet at every turn you claim to be serious, and that it's not just the braggadoccio of the powerless but something you earnestly believe and would do if you could.

    You

    • You're in denial of our reality:

      ...than attempt any lasting accomidation with them,...

      Does it look to you like no attempts at any lasting accomodation have ever been made? I would honestly like someone to tell me what hasn't yet been tried.

      (Even though defensive isolation is eminently achievable on both a personal and national scale.)

      If it is "eminently achievable", how come nobody but you knows how to do it? How do we do it?

      That's so monstrous...

      We didn't make the rules. We, as in America, never even want

      • "If it is "eminently achievable", how come nobody but you knows how to do it? How do we do it?"

        Isolationism is the easiest way. (Not saying it's the best.) On a personal level, just stop having contact with any known muslims and stop paying attention to international news. In Oregon, where MH42 and I both live, that's not at all difficult. That will reduce the risk of being personally troubled by any of the people he intends to genocide to well under the background risk of car accidents, heart attacks, etc.
        • That will reduce the risk of being personally troubled...

          You offered "defensive isolation" as 1) "eminently achievable", and 2) an alternative to MH42's solution, implying that yours was a better one. And you said "on both a personal and national scale". Just "reducing the risk" is nowhere near enough, given the likely rapidly-growing magnitude of danger (eventual acquisition of nukes or other WMD's). And I'm not too worried about my chances of personally bumping into a terrorist. Tell me your eminently ach
          • "Tell me your eminently achievable idea, on a national level, that solves the problem."

            Define the problem you'd like solved. Are you interested in reasonable long-term security for the nation and its citizens, or is the "problem" that there exist people which wish to harm us? It's a large problem set, so if you could just narrow it down a little for me, that'd be great.

            Personally, I'm not so afraid of al qeida that I think there's a problem in need of solving. But tell me what you want, and (time permitting
            • It's a non-zero-sum game in which everyone can win a just peace, or everyone can face utter disaster, or anything in between.

              The Koran defines a just peace. When there is one worldwide government under Allah, centered in Mecca, and all human dogs alive worship Allah through his Prophet Mohammed, and all follow the Shariah, there will be a just peace.

              Are you willing to win that just peace? Because that's the only definition of a just peace the Islamic extremists are willing to have with you- and they ar
              • Their bloodthirstiness is not what your JE seemed to be about. I thought this was about you and your introspection. I was, believe it or not, trying to be helpful to you.

                Solving the world's problems is secondary.
                • Well, you see, that's the problem with my introspection- I can't see how we can win a just peace for everybody when my definition of a just peace (Leave me the hell alone and stop invading my life with your stupid civil war) and thiers (We want to control the world and will kill you if you don't convert to whatever sect of the week is in power at the moment) seems to be a horridly large gulf. So large that I simply can't see any way over it or around it. Which leaves through it- but what a horrible decisi
            • I mean, hell, you can always try diplomacy first,...

              There's no point in going on, with someone who pretends they don't know what "the problem" is, and thinks diplomacy has never been tried in the Mideast. Cheers.
              • "There's no point in going on, with someone who pretends they don't know what "the problem" is, and thinks diplomacy has never been tried in the Mideast."

                My, such a monochromatic world you must live in. Sad, really.

                Or are you just disappointed that I called you out on your ignorance, and refused to play the game whereby I would have to offer solutions to your ever-changing problem definition? OnLawn schooled me well with that debate tactic, so I try not to play that game any more.

                If you want to continue, ju
                • The enemy's worldview is black and white- and does not allow for 2 bit greyscale or better. Which is the problem. Diplomacy HAS been tried- it resulted in Israel pulling back to internationally recognized borders and building a fence there. But the Arab states don't want diplomacy- they want the destruction of Israel. So diplomacy doesn't work.

                  Try again.
                  • "The enemy's worldview is black and white- and does not allow for 2 bit greyscale or better."

                    This coming from a guy who thinks that, among a billion people who believe in Islam, that

                    "I'm rather unconvinced, after this latest misadventure, that there are any innocent people in the Middle East. They all seem to be culturally indoctrinated within a few weeks of birth to be ridiculous bastards."

                    Not even a one in a billion chance?

                    I think the problem here is that your worldview is so 1-bit that you are blind to

                    • Not even a one in a billion chance?

                      Not from a culture whose worldview is "Join our tribe or die". You see, the reason the moderates don't exist in the middle east anymore is because the extremeists have been busy executing them.

                      I think the problem here is that your worldview is so 1-bit that you are blind to the possibility of subtlety of feeling among the muslim world.

                      In the middle east, they don't appear to exist anymore. There's no subtlety in either the Sunni or the Shi'ite worldview at all. NO
                    • "No, there's no more possibility of moderate muslims existing in the middle east than a moderate Christian existing in a Baptist Church."

                      QED. [maranathac...plains.org]

                      (Sorry for the lateness of reply... I hadn't noticed that particular bit in my earlier reading.)
                    • That's very funny- when it comes to religion I hardly think of the Carters as moderates. Evangelical Bible Thumpers yes, but not moderates. Just because they have a (slightly) different interpretation under Sola Scriptura doesn't mean they're THAT different from the neocons or the Phelps.

                      In fact, I'd say at this point you almost *have* to be a non-moderate Christian to get elected to office in the United States- and it's been that way for a very long time, since at least the 1950s.
                • My, such a monochromatic world you must live in. Sad, really.

                  It's not us who live in the monochromatic world- it's the semites themselves. You can't talk diplomacy with somebody who lives in a monochromatic world- they will just repeat the same demand over and over until you give in.

                  What part of that don't you understand?
          • I can tell you one thing that wasn't tried: Shutting down the WTO, shutting down our borders, mining our ports, and shooting down every plane that tries to cross our borders.

            That's the form of isolationism it would take- but it would have to go at least three steps further as well. EVERY illegal alien would have to be deported. EVERY muslim would have to convert to a new faith. EVERYBODY who refused to convert, would have to be either deported or killed. That's what it would take to achieve the level
            • I think that is more extreme than is really necessary to achieve sufficient security, but okay. For the sake of argument, let's run with that solution for a bit.

              Here you're talking displacing around a hundred million people, and probably killing a few million in the process. That'd suck.

              But it's a great improvement over your other plan, which calls for the outright extermination of ten or twenty times that many. In what way is this solution so insufficient as to overcome that difference in body count and m
              • Here's why it's not politically feasible:

                African Americans have adopted Islam's promise of justice from God Alone as their way out of oppression.

                This oddly leads us back to the very topic of the JE- THIS solution IS racism, to a huge extent. Where I do believe that extremeists have taken over Islam in the middle east- in our own society they haven't yet. This alternate solution, which I also once proposed something close to (well, the first part anyway, the remaining three are additions sice then), may
                • "Here's why it's not politically feasible"

                  And you think mass murder of a billion or two people is more politically feasible?
                  • And you think mass murder of a billion or two people is more politically feasible?

                    From an isolationist point of view? Yes, as long as it happens someplace else. Hopefully someplace significantly far away from us. Hopefully someplace that is specifically mentioned in the form of justice we're having a problem with, in the scriptures that are causing so much strife. It would have been more politically feasible had it been done within 24 hours of 9-11, but the extremist sects involved are giving us equal
        • Isolationism is the easiest way. (Not saying it's the best.) On a personal level, just stop having contact with any known muslims and stop paying attention to international news. In Oregon, where MH42 and I both live, that's not at all difficult. That will reduce the risk of being personally troubled by any of the people he intends to genocide to well under the background risk of car accidents, heart attacks, etc.

          I found out today it's a heck of a lot more difficult than you'd think- at the Washington Cou
          • " ... were building a wall ... "

            Good fences may make good neighbors, yet a fence built on a disputed property line is a new source of trouble.

            They did not sort out the border dispute before building the wall, so it's no surprise that it didn't improve the situation.
            • They did not sort out the border dispute before building the wall, so it's no surprise that it didn't improve the situation.

              In the case of Lebonon they had- they left all internationally recognized Lebanese territory six years ago.

              However, if they had settled the border to the Arab satisfaction- well, the Southern border of Lebanon would be on Egypt...remember, they don't want Israel there AT ALL.
              • The border with Lebanon is not where they built the wall.
                • The border with Lebanon is not where they built the wall.

                  It's a part of it. There's also the West Bank and Gaza. Unlike America, Israel actually believes in defending it's borders. And let's face it, Hamas isn't who attacked- Hezebolah did.
                  • The wall along the West Bank [wikipedia.org] does not follow any internationally-recognized border.
                    • Yes it does- the border between Jordan and Israel. But you're also right in that border is disputed- most Arabs believe it should be the Mediterainean Sea, as Israel should not exist.
                    • "Yes it does- the border between Jordan and Israel."

                      Umm. No. That's not where the wall is. Unless you're taling about the 1949 armistice line, which is the disputed border I'm talking about. The wall doesn't follow that armistice line very closely, and generally its errors are to the detriment of the palestinians.
                    • Umm. No. That's not where the wall is. Unless you're taling about the 1949 armistice line, which is the disputed border I'm talking about. The wall doesn't follow that armistice line very closely, and generally its errors are to the detriment of the palestinians.

                      Doesn't matter very much- according to the Palestinians, the border of Jordan should be the Mediteranian Seashore. That's why they elected Hamas. There is no border for Israel that is not in dispute, because the existance of Israel itself is in
                    • If it'll get rid of Texas... hmm. Maybe.

                      Can we keep Lyle Lovett and Steve Jackson Games?
    • I think "aggressively xenophobic" is closer to the mark.

      Or rather, realistically xenophobic. For instance:

      You'd rather kill off a couple billion people than attempt any lasting accomidation with them, or even defensive isolation from them. (Even though defensive isolation is eminently achievable on both a personal and national scale.)

      The Israelis tried that- Hezebolah merely set up rocket sites on the other side of their border, and started firing them indiscriminately. Face facts- there's no lastin

Slashdot Top Deals

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Close