- Seperate is never equal (a la Brown vs. Board of Education)
- Globalization and homoginization of cultures is bad.
Anyone got a synthesis between these two?
I would imagine that as with any two seemingly contradictory ideas, one probably just ought to check one’s premises.
somewhat trivially, that equal is bad. But really, that homogenity and un-seperateness aren’t the same thing.
Care to elaborate? I’ve got a comment to make here, I just want to know what you’re looking for so I know how to phrase it…
Another thread just got me thinking about this, I forget which one since it was a while ago. What I was thinking is that one of the fundamentals of American liberalism is that seperate can never be equal. This makes sense on a variety of levels, including accessibility of resources and the human habit of establishing heirarchies based upon differences. If I run a race on one day and the wind is blowing in my face and another person runs the next day with the wind at their back, even though we have theoretically run the same race, his race was an easier one than mine.
At the same time, opposing globalization is another fundamental of American liberalism. This makes sense, since all cultures have some inherent value and should be judged on their own terms. Additionally, homogenization almost always leads to a decrease in quality (look at pop music) so maintaining a variety of seperate cultural identities makes sense in that regard as well.
However, by promoting the maintainence of a plurality of cultures, a forced seperation occurs. Different cultures will, theoretically, have their varying strengths and weaknesses however, by allowing them to exist and exacerbating the seperation these differences become more and more apparent. It has been argued that racially segregated schooling has some advantages, by both white and non-whites in America. However, I think that we all realize that in practice this can never work, since racist attitudes persist and will nullify any advantages by a huge disparity in funding. Do analogies not exist for culture?
Personally, I support both statements, I’m just looking for a way to make sure that I can and remain consistant.
Hi, Xunzian.
I don’t see how one can which is why I earlier alluded to the idea of checking one’s premises. I’m not seeing at all why globalization is necessarily a bad thing. Because we don’t like the results? Hmm.
The sharing worldwide of cultures and ideas and philosophies is a bad thing? If it’s happening more and more then it seems to me as though people must be desirous of it. And I’m wondering why I should be stopped from exporting something of my culture or importing something of somebody else’s culture.
“Maintaining a variety of separate cultural identities†seems like another way of saying we should put up barriers around cultures, forcing cultures to remain off-limits to other cultures. East Berlin was such a culture at one time. The world is getting smaller like it or not. Personally, I like it. Very much.
Whether 'tis better to homogenize, than be skim or cream… It’s a tough question to answer. If homogenization would alleviate much of the suffering and violence we see today, how could one be against it? But at the cost of individual identity? I suspect it will be a long time before there is any danger of personal identity being lost in globalization. Human greed almost guarantees that.
JT
But for a clear example of the effects of globalization look at music.
In the 1700s, Mozart borrowed a great deal from the Orient, and it gave his music a wonderful extra edge. Check out the Magic Flute. That was an example of good cultural exchange.
However, check out the modern American music scene. Its been exported globally. Is Brittany Spears the harbinger of the globalized era? With products being exported like that, we’ll have lost both ends of the bell curve and be stuck with stunning mediocrity.
In the latter case, everything is ‘equal’ in the absolute worst meaning of the word. To me, equal does not mean level, it means the idea that it could be level. When we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, we do not mean to reaffirm that everyone is the same, or even that everyone is endowed with the same abilities. Some are naturally born smarter or more beautiful, yet we try very hard to pretend that the field is level.
I am all for creating hardcore heirarchies; however, I think they need to be formed with the right intent. If the are formed for the benefit of the highest members, then nobody wins. I guess it boils down to the idea of an equal, classless society and maintaining a stable middle class. At what lengths do we go to create that stable middle class before we are pushing too much towards the former? I am trying to check my premises, Jerry, that’s why I created the thread. I’m just trying to use ILP to work through the process.
Brittany Spears
It’s amazing how westerners see some starving illiterate black guy from Africa banging on a log and think, “how authentic,” and then disrespect Brittany!
And there you have it, the benefits and drawbacks of the system. Seperate is not equal, at all, and that is terrible. Yet widespread mediocrity is also terrifying.
And I can appreciate this, Xunzian.
It just seems like you’re arguing in such subjective terms. I don’t care for the music of Brittany Spears either, but so what? Apparently millions of others do. I’m not seeing how I can put myself in a position of declaring it mediocre. By what standard? By whose standard?
And let’s suppose it is, by some objective standard, mediocre. There is the other side of globalization. The side where we get to hear music we would never otherwise get to hear. Globalized markets have pushed the doors wide open, allowing us the opportunity to experience things of other cultures that just a generation ago were totally inaccessible.
Global markets have also increased demand for goods and services of unique things that could never find a big enough market in the mainstream. Witness the proliferation of indie films for example. Far from homogenization, increased market sizes have encouraged creativity and innovation.
I’m just not seeing the problem.
Nothing under the sun is equal, nature says so and man can’t do nothing about it. Equality is a not even the dream for the poor, for nobody dreams about equality while the possibility of advantagous inequality exists for him, which is precisely why the poor betrays the ideology of this political propaganda once power is attained. Equality is the excuse for the poor. It is merely another spiritual luxury for the rich, if I take away this luxury’s glamour hence its value, then the rich has no reason to promote or practise equality.
Equality was a non-concept in pre-medieval society. In medieval society, it was constraint to the scale of individual class, which is to say, no peasant then questioned the ethical legitimacy of the wealth and power owned by his king, by his superior classes. Equality has in time acquired a moral status, which forbid anyone to acquire significant kingship or lordship. Morality has been enriched by the poor, as the way religion has, both of which are utilities for them, serving the purpose of strengthening and enpowering themselves. To make themselves rich.
Equality is moral sore spot, which the immoralist attack frequently. The aim of the assult is not to rob away equality’s moral status, but to use equality to demostrate the essence of morality in general. There is a good reason for such a deed to be carried out. We have seen how ethical ideaologies such as equality have offended natural principles hence brought damnations on earth. The communist attempt has been the greatest fuck-up ever done, it is philosophically stupid and practically calamous. While the application of science has to take care the features of our already moral-bound society, it is often bounded in too many constrains, to the point of betraying scientific principles hence becoming severely detrimental in its misapplication.
Globalisation is an economic necessity which on the global scale, flattens the lorenz curve. China’s trade with America is a shining proof of this. Does America desire others to catch up? Not at all, but plainly, trading with China is vital for its economy. America has no choice but to lose the previlage of consuming the best goods as they start to fall to the hands of foreign consumers, and to lay off its light manufacturing workers due to foreign competition. America’s trade deficit with China is huge and is getting huger. Again, that’s just the way it is supposed to be.
What you can do is to increase the values of economic elements which are beneficial to America, by means of commercial competition. If you try to concentrate on that, then no problem of moral equallness brought about by globlisation should present any bother. If you are mainly worried about America’s unfair trade with much of Africa, then relax, Africa is dumping America fast, for China, regarding which you can rest assured that China wouldn’t experience this kind of moral consciense. So in the end for everybody involved here, including the Whitehouse, guys like Mugabi and the Chicons, equality will no longer present any problem. The UN, however, will always be a bit of a bother, but what makes up the UN? Besides, as his son has already involenturily demostrated, we should have complete faith in the Secretary General’s moral flexibility.
Morality is the battle front for the powerless and poor, its their only effective weapon in striving for survival and prosperity. Religion has been a real bless for them, but not anymore. Morality holds a less place in the mentality of the rich and powerful. The fact that they are holding the stronghold for the enemy is not a miracle. Morality is indespensible to all social classes, unless chaos is desired, wars are wanted. A desire which has been occuring in sine wave function thoughout history. A desire which is not diminishable even though it confronts morality in outright manners. Thus morality is afterall, a puppet for the will, the will to power.
It would be crime commited against the will, if one bows to the wrong master. In the realm of commerce, morality must be an employee, not an employer.