…a telephone system that’s gotten uppity.
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
From the genius at xkcd.com : a gorgeous map of online communities.
Warning - may bear resemblance to what passes for reality here in the toobs:)
…to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are.
Oh, the BBC have outdone themselves. Visit this amazing interactive historical timeline of British history. It’s stunning, informative, and I imagine, would be invluable to history buffs, students, and people like, just - interested! (Yes, I am a not so closeted archeology addict, documentary junkie, and all round history nerd.)
…where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
There is an intruiging article about blindly stupid decisions made in German law that claims to show you can have Multiculturalism, or Equal Rights - not both, as respecting religious differences in a multicultural society means accepting violations of normal human rights.
Now, I agree wholeheartedly that the judges in these cases have been total morons, no two ways about it. But to claim that this means you cannot have multiculturalism at all, is like the old saw: ‘Alma Cogan is dead, therefore all dead people are Alma Cogan’. It’s muddy thinking. Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some other appropriate cliche.
Society is made up of elements, all agreed upon by society. They evolve, as societies do. Slavery is a prime example of that. It was once acceptable, even endorsed by the common religious beliefs of the time. But both the society, and the religious beliefs, evolved, matured, changed, and it was recognised as inherently abhorrent.
In a monocultural society, assimilation is expected, and, from the Wikipedia entry on Multiculturalism : ‘Assimilation implies the need for groups that fall out of the homogeneous norm to fully embrace and accept the dominant cultural paradigm as their own without concurrent adjustments from the dominant group‘. However, conversely, Multiculturalism is then about groups embracing the dominant cultural paradigm, while the dominant group makes concurrent adjustments. Its like any relationship, adjustments, compromise, workable solutions. Groups have blended in, accepted the laws and ways of the land - the first generation finds it harder, but the second and successive find it easier, while bringing the rich gifts of their cultural history. However, it was always with the proviso that the law of the land held sway, priority over formerly known laws. Again, subsequent generations had found it easier, normal, natural to follow that. Not always, there will always be elements that have trouble with that transition - criminal gangs, extreme religious factions etc. But in the majority - which, after all, is what defines society.
But a monoculture is stagnant and doomed to failure. Evolution, as with any species, is vital. However, the evolution of a society is comparable to artificial selection in much of its working, with elements of natural selection occuring as part of that process. People decide the progression of their society. Laws and rules, acceptable mores and customs change. Fashions change. Hairstyles change. Umm, where was I? Oh yes, change is VITAL, but, in societal terms, is, or at least MUST be, directed.
But while change is occuring, and this change is defined by the society, it does not mean blind acceptance of all elements of a migrating group is required for multiculturalism. Society should be grown based on the BEST elements of each culture. Pick and choose. From the Wikipedia article on artificial selection : ‘[Darwin] originally coined the term as an illustration of his proposed wider process of natural selection. He noted that many domesticated animals and plants had special properties that were developed by intentionally encouraging the breeding potential of individuals who both possessed desirable characteristics, and discouraging the breeding of individuals who had less desirable characteristics.‘
Desirable characteristics folks. It’s all about whats desirable. And I completely fail to see how retrogressive steps in human rights could be regarded by any reasonable society as desirable. So lets chuck that one out right away, shall we? Also,while it is bad for a society in its lessening of rights, it also leads to discord and disharmony when one group or another has their particular beliefs given precedence over the laws of the lands. If the majority agree the law is wrong, as with slavery, it gets changed. However, what if immigrants decided (as in the case of these women, it is not far from), that slavery is acceptable. Do we allow them to keep slaves? No, they must change their ways. Part of the concurrent adjustment to the dominant paradigm, accepting the laws of their new society. They have the RIGHT to try and influence society to change, but they MUST accept the outcome, whatever that may be. Tht is how bad laws get changed, after all.
In short, while Multiculturalism is good for a society, blindly allowing groups priority over the greater good of the community is foolish, AGAINST the tenets of multiculturalism, and dangerous. It leads to discord, racism, group against group, element against element. Immigration is nto the problem. Extreme ends of the scale are - all groups given the freedom to do as they wish, or demands they give up ALL that was good about their society, and blindly follow this new one absolutely.
And if you have read this far, it is time for a nice cup of tea. If more people did that, sat down and paused with a cuppa before being silly, dangerous, or violent, what would the world be like?:)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.
it's about time is powered by WordPress 2.6 and Unnamed One 0.4.3 beta by iqwolf
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
