Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Multiculturalism to Monoculturalism

Long story short, I think the ironic thing about multiculturalism is that it will eventually and inevitably end in a world monoculture. Multiculturalism is always the first step. Take Europe. Even a place as small as ancient Britain had a diversity of cultures within it. It's not really a monoculture now. It's geopolitically unified, as in people are brought under one administration with similar laws and there are general customs that synch, but they aren't a true monoculture. They just lie within a particular range of relevancy.

For example...say you have 1 2 3 4 and 5.

Say that I can draw a circle around any three consecutive numbers. The one in the middle is a lot like numbers next to it, but each are different. If a draw around 1, 2, and 3, I can call these a "culture". But if I draw around 2, 3, and 4, I can also call this a culture. Say 1,2, and 3 are Britain. And say 3, 4, and 5 is France. While one and two may be an order of magnitude more different than 4 and 5, I'd say 2, 3, and 4 would have similarities that could make the two their own culture like most border-landers. The geopolitical name doesn't really define the culture, it just set's brackets around a section of a cultural continuum.

However, as technology evolves and cultures become more and more connected, similarities become more prominent. This, I believe, is first achieved by the necessity of efficiency and practicality. For instance, a lot of building techniques have been used in the past. This took in factors of material, weather, and social-political concerns. It was also heavily influenced by artistic aesthetic. Aesthetics will never disappear completely, but because of the nature of society as it is now, people will opt for the best ways of doing things more times than not, setting a uniform standard. Another pathway is things like umbrella corporations. When everyone has the same things, and everyone is sharing information about those things, they will begin to use them in the same way. Innovations that would have normally been isolated to a particular place now travel light-speed. The more and more we do things the same way, the more and more alike we will become. Doing things the same breeds a similar outlook of the world. A bunch of carpenters will have a similar outlook on things. A bunch of doctors, dancers, writers, etc. The monoculture will never be total as there never is a total monoculture. But I think, in time, in the same general was that we can call the collective of cultures in America "American culture", a world culture will emerge.

And this doesn't even include political and economic consolidations, but you get the drift. Variety will always be important to the human race, I think, but as the future rolls on, variety will no longer be natural but manufactured. We'd be putting an effort into being different as school kids who go to the same school would, or people at work who wish to be distinguished from everyone else does. Customization will seem like distinct culture, perhaps, but I think it will come down to so many different shades of lipstick on the same pair of lips. Or lips of much, much fewer true varieties than we have now.

Is this bad or good? Don't know. Do we consider the present better than the past because there's far less cultural diversity today than there was in the past. Only times gonna tell.

Comments

I thought the whole point of multiculturalism was to keep separate and thereby hopefully grow like a cancer and supplant the culture already there? I'm sorry, but that is the attitude I'm seeing where I live.

I would also offer the example of the Balkans. There you have several overlapping cultures, yet even after living many years- decades - under the iron fist of Tito/authoritarian socialism which categorically forbade separatism the moment they were left to their own wills each of the cultures began ethnically cleansing the other. They were nominally Yugos, but in reality multiculturalists ( i.e. they maintained separate cultures).

While I agree with you in theory that eventually the various cultures will blend, I think multiculturalism is force against this 'blending'. One side or the other has to give in and take up the other's language etc. or you have Catalonia, Quebec, Kurdistan, Kashmiri, Armenia, Ukraine...
 
I'm pretty sure the intellectuals behind multiculturalism know that it will lead to monoculturalism, and that it's deliberately intended. Call me dubious, but I do not dare think that I - and many others, including you - could've came to this conclusion so easily by simple observation, while the architects of "multiculturalism" are still completely oblivious to the fact.

No doubt I'm sure there are some people in high places that don't know what they're bringing about, or don't care. But it's the same thing one finds with postmodernism and communism. The intellectuals who devised them are fully aware of the implications. Then they dupe some useful idiots for the sake of obtaining power and influence for their ideology and political agenda.

Monoculturalism won't solve genocide. If it can't be committed on the basis of race, it will still be committed on the basis of religion and a whole host of other things. Those people *will* find a way. It won't solve discrimination either, a word that has an undeserved negative connotation. Thus I rule out these two reasons as potential motivations.

Trigger Warning: The biggest problem for me is that I find white people (typically) to be more aesthetically pleasing, followed by Asians. Which really only factors into who I date. Not saying there are NO people of darker complexion who I find attractive.

I joke, of course, when I say that's my biggest problem. In seriousness it's still a factor though. Luckily, it won't happen in my lifetime.
 
It (losing culture or have one culture) also falls under research called assimilation. You have families that want their culture respected. The state policy varies. As does the teaching of language to immigrants of certain states. It also varies by schooling. Even though I am a diverse person: I dislike how culture spreads and is misinformation. And even though it is a cliche to almost say this technology spreads it faster. My position? Let them both exist, however polemic it becomes. It comes down to authority and other reasons. But to fix culture is impossible. So might as well let it evolve.

Almost everything we have acquired by culture subconsciously our belief system. Which is why in very influential people it can be very dangerous especially in positions of power. I say once again the political system is to blame like some people have said. Then the political system can spread culture as well. By promoting a lack of deterrence to help fight bad beliefs. Look at the middle east for example. I don't wish to offend anyone from there. But their system of government.

I think political clout though deserves to recognize minorities. So there goes another argument to consider.

Canada's system of government recognizes the smallest minorities. Such as Asians as an example. And have laws passed down to promote them in some instances I think I recall from somewhere, not to mention their representation is different. They were once governed by a monarchy and have a somewhat unique government. I went there once and visited the parliament building on vacation. They told me about it on that tour.

A department of culture is not uncommon to see in a country whether in an embassy in a country's government.

In spain and france for instance I have seen on tv legislation passed where women sometimes cannot wear their traditional clothes because of religion in the middle east. A motive could also be in those cases that the government does not like what has been going on lately.
 
Kevin;bt10953 said:
I thought the whole point of multiculturalism was to keep separate and thereby hopefully grow like a cancer and supplant the culture already there? I'm sorry, but that is the attitude I'm seeing where I live.

I would also offer the example of the Balkans. There you have several overlapping cultures, yet even after living many years- decades - under the iron fist of Tito/authoritarian socialism which categorically forbade separatism the moment they were left to their own wills each of the cultures began ethnically cleansing the other. They were nominally Yugos, but in reality multiculturalists ( i.e. they maintained separate cultures).

While I agree with you in theory that eventually the various cultures will blend, I think multiculturalism is force against this 'blending'. One side or the other has to give in and take up the other's language etc. or you have Catalonia, Quebec, Kurdistan, Kashmiri, Armenia, Ukraine...

You could be right, but I'm thinking that the situations you site are not actually situations based on racial or ethnic differences. Yes, that is what's being said, and their might be a bunch of slanderous audio and such to back it, BUT if you look back to the causes of it, or the things that sustains it, the real problem is political. It's usually a conflict over who's has what or is getting what, and who isn't. Sometimes those differences coincide with ethnicity, but the reason is more political than a rejection of culture. I think even in times of conflict the cultures will adhere to one another with enough contact.
 
Smith;bt10957 said:
I'm pretty sure the intellectuals behind multiculturalism know that it will lead to monoculturalism, and that it's deliberately intended. Call me dubious, but I do not dare think that I - and many others, including you - could've came to this conclusion so easily by simple observation, while the architects of "multiculturalism" are still completely oblivious to the fact.

No doubt I'm sure there are some people in high places that don't know what they're bringing about, or don't care. But it's the same thing one finds with postmodernism and communism. The intellectuals who devised them are fully aware of the implications. Then they dupe some useful idiots for the sake of obtaining power and influence for their ideology and political agenda.

Monoculturalism won't solve genocide. If it can't be committed on the basis of race, it will still be committed on the basis of religion and a whole host of other things. Those people *will* find a way. It won't solve discrimination either, a word that has an undeserved negative connotation. Thus I rule out these two reasons as potential motivations.

Yeah. I think, in the end, it will turn out to be a bullet sold as headache medicine, but it seems it must run it's course. It's hard to argue against a seemingly positive thing and actually citing facts will just bore people to death, I think.

If I had to take a guess, I'm thinking radical changes bring times of instability and upheaval. Instability and upheaval make one susceptible to radical reforms, and I think the goal is to, in some way, change the nations structure through liberal-progressive reform. There will be good reforms, yes. But there will be other, not so good ones also. Reform from a national to international system where one doesn't have to sneak around the constitution like they do today because they probably will be voided. That's me guessing and I certainly could be wrong, but I don't think billions of dollars are invested into politics for the sake of humanity.

Trigger Warning: The biggest problem for me is that I find white people (typically) to be more aesthetically pleasing, followed by Asians. Which really only factors into who I date. Not saying there are NO people of darker complexion who I find attractive.

I joke, of course, when I say that's my biggest problem. In seriousness it's still a factor though. Luckily, it won't happen in my lifetime.

Lol. You know, I actually told one of my teachers that I think the appeal had to do something with the color, itself. Like...if you had to pick your favorite color, would it be a color from the lighter spectrum or the darker spectrum? I think young people chose light and older people chose dark and that it's primarily because older people put more thought into it than younger people who go for superficial appeal. And I also said that in nature, bright colors tend to attract more than darker colors, so that's why light skin and colorful eyes tend to appeal more. I figured it was the colors, themselves. He laughed and sagely said nothing more, but I was honestly looking for his critique on that one, lol.

But, on average, I would say White girls or more pleasing to look at too. For me. However, the most beautiful tend to be from more exotic races, like Middle Eastern woman, or Asian woman, or Indian woman, or something like that.
 
Theglasshouse;bt10959 said:
It (losing culture or have one culture) also falls under research called assimilation. You have families that want their culture respected. The state policy varies. As does the teaching of language to immigrants of certain states. It also varies by schooling. Even though I am a diverse person: I dislike how culture spreads and is misinformation. And even though it is a cliche to almost say this technology spreads it faster. My position? Let them both exist, however polemic it becomes. It comes down to authority and other reasons. But to fix culture is impossible. So might as well let it evolve.

Almost everything we have acquired by culture subconsciously our belief system. Which is why in very influential people it can be very dangerous especially in positions of power. I say once again the political system is to blame like some people have said. Then the political system can spread culture as well. By promoting a lack of deterrence to help fight bad beliefs. Look at the middle east for example. I don't wish to offend anyone from there. But their system of government.

I think political clout though deserves to recognize minorities. So there goes another argument to consider.

Canada's system of government recognizes the smallest minorities. Such as Asians as an example. And have laws passed down to promote them in some instances I think I recall from somewhere, not to mention their representation is different. They were once governed by a monarchy and have a somewhat unique government. I went there once and visited the parliament building on vacation. They told me about it on that tour.

A department of culture is not uncommon to see in a country whether in an embassy in a country's government.

In spain and france for instance I have seen on tv legislation passed where women sometimes cannot wear their traditional clothes because of religion in the middle east. A motive could also be in those cases that the government does not like what has been going on lately.

I'm hoping for the best...but I fear the worst.
 

Blog entry information

Author
kaminoshiyo
Views
55
Comments
6
Last update

More entries in Creative Writing 101

Top