Black History Month 2014

[Viking]

You earlier argued that multiculturalism had "nothing to do" with a comparison of the outcomes in material production of various societies/cultures.  There is no "value judgement" to comparing per capita GDPs, except the value judgement of which measurement of GDP to use.

Huh?

"Multiculturalism" has nothing to do with comparative GDPs.

Actually it does. You will note that I always included references to institutions and habits when referring to culture. What your relationship to other people in society, what institutions you participate in and how you participate in are culture too. These things have everything to do with GDP. GDP is a measure of the resources available to a society, not just individuals. It turns out that this is very culture dependent. 

This is tangential to Viking's point (which I don't completely agree with, btw).  He was saying that guys like Diamond are engaged in a type of multicultural studies, and you are (apparently) arguing that Diamond et al were not.  In this case, I think Viking is correct.

What are "multicultural studies"? Are you conflating "multiculturalism" with "cultural relativism"? The two are not the same thing. 

I'm talking about actual multicultualism - that is, its use in policy-making, within our society. I really have no idea of what use you are making of the term.

As in: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-18.7/page-1.html

Or: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/24/multiculturalism-in-its-controversial-glory-is-canada-a-country-without-a-core-culture/

here you are confusing culture with race, and suggesting the silly idea that your race determines which habits you cultivate, which instutions you participate in and how you treat people and society around you.

Can Shariah Juristpruedence or Confusian Patriarchy or an Indian Caste Structure make any beneficial contribution to Western (for the lack of a better word) culture? I say no. Can they improve our society, I say no. The migration rate between western societies and islamic, confusian and hindu societies suggests that anybody who has to stake his or her future on the proposition agrees with me.

The ideas that man belongs to god, that father (and the president) know best and you were born to be a fish monger (or whatever) do not deserve respect or even the pretense of respect.

I say let them bring their cuisine, music, games, poetry, art and genetics with them. Our societies will be all the better for them. However the central ideas which we base our western society on, that man is an individual and can choose his purpose in life, that the common facts we use to decide on the choices our society makes are the material facts discoverable by investigation, that the law applies to all people equally and that sovereignty lies with the people, are not to be treated as one among many. This is the bedrock that our societies rest on.

Divided societies never produce equal outcomes, period. Different means Divided, Divided means Separate and Separate certainly doesn't mean equal. 

[Viking]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s

Morgan Freeman saying it better than I can, "black history is american history"

[Sheilbh]

He's making the opposite point to you though

[Viking]

He's making the opposite point to you though

If that's what you think then you fail at reading comprehension. He goes on to object to being considered a member of a separate group. He's an individual and an american in his own eyes.

... however, just as a matter of curiosity, could you in your own words formulate the point you think I'm making?

[Sheilbh]

Basically that multiple narratives are bad and divisive. Roughly.

[Viking]

Basically that multiple narratives are bad and divisive. Roughly.

And what is the opposite point Morgan Freeman makes?

[Sheilbh]

That the narrative's already plural. 'You're going to relegate my history to a month. What do you do with yours?' Also, as you point out, 'black history is American history'. So is Jewish, Italian, Irish, Polish and all the rest. If anything I'd argue that African-Americans, with the Scots-Ulster/Appalachia/'American'-Americans are the most American.

Setting aside time to learn about one that was ignored for bad reasons isn't dividing a single story into many. The diversity is built in. There are lots of stories already.

But basically I think there's a difference between the point you're making, which to me seems the worst kind of grand narrative-building nonsense, and had you come in and said 'but guys black history is American history. We should be celebrating it all the year round!'

[Grinning_Colossus]

Can Shariah Juristpruedence or Confusian Patriarchy or an Indian Caste Structure make any beneficial contribution to Western (for the lack of a better word) culture? I say no. Can they improve our society, I say no. The migration rate between western societies and islamic, confusian and hindu societies suggests that anybody who has to stake his or her future on the proposition agrees with me.

No, all of those things are horrible, but they luckily break down pretty quickly outside of their original societal contexts -- both because they lack the support to be tenable outside of insular 1st and 2nd generation immigrant communities and because Enlightenment rationalism has the property of eroding irrational cultural constructs. It happened along time ago in the West and it's happening at varying speeds in the rest of the world. Multiculturalism is a stalking horse for long-term integration, since by mollifying the most reactionary and intransigent members of minority communities (who often happen to be respected elders) it keeps them from engaging in too much separatist rhetoric, which makes it easier for 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants to become exposed to the majority culture, which helps them realize that some parts of their own culture are silly and which leads to their integrating and and intermarrying with other groups. I agree that indulging lunatics in things like Sharia' Law in the name of multiculturalism is going too far, though.

[Viking]

That the narrative's already plural. 'You're going to relegate my history to a month. What do you do with yours?' Also, as you point out, 'black history is American history'. So is Jewish, Italian, Irish, Polish and all the rest. If anything I'd argue that African-Americans, with the Scots-Ulster/Appalachia/'American'-Americans are the most American.

He's ridiculing the idea of separate minority history months. Be they scotch-irish or jewish or whatever. He doesn't want any history months, not black not anything else. He goes on to suggest that not talking about it and treating people as individuals as a solution to racism (I agree with the second half, the treating people as individuals bit, but not the former).

Setting aside time to learn about one that was ignored for bad reasons isn't dividing a single story into many. The diversity is built in. There are lots of stories already.

But basically I think there's a difference between the point you're making, which to me seems the worst kind of grand narrative-building nonsense, and had you come in and said 'but guys black history is American history. We should be celebrating it all the year round!'

All the bits of what usually is included in black history month is part of american history and should be treated as such. The very act of setting a side a special month for blacks not only encourages the establishment of a parallel identity in conflict with the rest of society it also relegates the contributions of african-americans to american history as a topic of special interest which can safely be ignored the rest of the year.

Anyways, I'm not gonna bother with you on this topic anymore since your obviously not talking to me but rather presenting us with your half of a conversation with a straw-man in your head.

[Viking]

Can Shariah Juristpruedence or Confusian Patriarchy or an Indian Caste Structure make any beneficial contribution to Western (for the lack of a better word) culture? I say no. Can they improve our society, I say no. The migration rate between western societies and islamic, confusian and hindu societies suggests that anybody who has to stake his or her future on the proposition agrees with me.

No, all of those things are horrible, but they luckily break down pretty quickly outside of their original societal contexts -- both because they lack the support to be tenable outside of insular 1st and 2nd generation immigrant communities and because Enlightenment rationalism has the property of eroding irrational cultural constructs. It happened along time ago in the West and it's happening at varying speeds in the rest of the world. Multiculturalism is a stalking horse for long-term integration, since by mollifying the most reactionary and intransigent members of minority communities (who often happen to be respected elders) it keeps them from engaging in too much separatist rhetoric, which makes it easier for 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants to integrate and intermarry with other groups. I agree that indulging lunatics in things like Sharia' Law in the name of multiculturalism is going too far, though.

Mollifying them also validates their concerns and gives credence to their narratives. Especially in the case of european muslims the integration levels among the groups falls over the generations. They are getting less and less integrated over time, not more. You can see this by rates of intermarriage (Especially when compared to other non-wesetern immigrant groups), work force participation, rates of incarceration etc.etc.

When the separate identity is validated it continues and prevents integration. Thats how the jews managed to survive as a people for almost 2 thousand years living among other peoples, they kept their separate identity throughout.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Black people were uniquely subjected to a lot of abuse throughout American history, so they get a history month that most people forget about and that forces the History channel to dig up a documentary on the Underground Railroad and some other stations to maybe play Roots. Does it make black people feel more included? Does it reinforce exclusionary racial identities? Neither, because it's not a big enough deal to affect anyone.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Can Shariah Juristpruedence or Confusian Patriarchy or an Indian Caste Structure make any beneficial contribution to Western (for the lack of a better word) culture? I say no. Can they improve our society, I say no. The migration rate between western societies and islamic, confusian and hindu societies suggests that anybody who has to stake his or her future on the proposition agrees with me.

No, all of those things are horrible, but they luckily break down pretty quickly outside of their original societal contexts -- both because they lack the support to be tenable outside of insular 1st and 2nd generation immigrant communities and because Enlightenment rationalism has the property of eroding irrational cultural constructs. It happened along time ago in the West and it's happening at varying speeds in the rest of the world. Multiculturalism is a stalking horse for long-term integration, since by mollifying the most reactionary and intransigent members of minority communities (who often happen to be respected elders) it keeps them from engaging in too much separatist rhetoric, which makes it easier for 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants to integrate and intermarry with other groups. I agree that indulging lunatics in things like Sharia' Law in the name of multiculturalism is going too far, though.

Mollifying them also validates their concerns and gives credence to their narratives. Especially in the case of european muslims the integration levels among the groups falls over the generations. They are getting less and less integrated over time, not more. You can see this by rates of intermarriage (Especially when compared to other non-wesetern immigrant groups), work force participation, rates of incarceration etc.etc.

When the separate identity is validated it continues and prevents integration. Thats how the jews managed to survive as a people for almost 2 thousand years living among other peoples, they kept their separate identity throughout.

For most of that period Jews who wanted to integrate had to take the plunge and become Christians, which would have cut them off from their friends and family. As religion lost importance Jews in Western and Central Europe started integrating in very large numbers before the Holocaust. There might be something specifically wrong with the Muslim immigrant experience in Europe, or it might just be too early to tell. They're integrating fine in America.

[garbon]

Does it make black people feel more included? Does it reinforce exclusionary racial identities? Neither, because it's not a big enough deal to affect anyone.

[Sheilbh]

He's ridiculing the idea of separate minority history months. Be they scotch-irish or jewish or whatever. He doesn't want any history months, not black not anything else. He goes on to suggest that not talking about it and treating people as individuals as a solution to racism (I agree with the second half, the treating people as individuals bit, but not the former).

Yeah. But he's saying that in the context of 'don't relegate my history'. What he's not saying is that we should go back to grand narrative history - whether it's liberal, Whiggish, sonderweg, Marxist or whatever else. He's also not saying we should go back to history which, due to bigotry, isn't the full story. So we shouldn't go back to a version of history that is solely about Europe and European and similarly we shouldn't deny or skate over the impact of minority groups within our own history (and, in fact, we should talk about it because the reasons they were denied are a part of our history). The classic example there is Alan Turing.

I agree with the sentiment that black or gay history shouldn't be split off for just one month - like puppies, they're forever. But I think first we have to get to the point where they are part of our general history and I don't think we're there yet.

Having said all that Freeman is an actor, so what he says on this doesn't really matter any more than Benedict Cumberbatch's opinion on Wikileaks matters. Also the interviewers point that you have black history month to combat racism is absurd. That's putting a lot of weight on a rather slender reed. You have black history month to improve general historical knowledge.

All the bits of what usually is included in black history month is part of american history and should be treated as such. The very act of setting a side a special month for blacks not only encourages the establishment of a parallel identity in conflict with the rest of society

But America is made up of parallel identities. Hell, most people are made up of parallel identities.  America is the country of Whitman. It doesn't mean there's conflict or that it's exclusionary. It's what identity is in America and I think increasingly globally.

Black history month is now more exclusionary than St. Paddy's Day and I'd go further that I think 'black' is, like 'queer' and 'white', quite an open word. And of course if it was just for black people to celebrate and learn about their history that wouldn't be so good but it's an invitation for everyone to get involved.

I always find myself agreeing more and more with Blair's view that politics now isn't about left-right but open-closed. On this sort of thing I think America, Canada, increasingly the UK and other countries with a similar attitude are more open and that will help them and is the right choice. I don't think the idea of closing ourselves off in this need to have a homogenous coherent culture is a good thing, or would work.

it also relegates the contributions of african-americans to american history as a topic of special interest which can safely be ignored the rest of the year.

I agree in theory. The problem is that's not the world we came from. We didn't previously study African-American history within the broad context of American history. We just didn't really study African-American history. So I think a corrective is justified.

As religion lost importance Jews in Western and Central Europe started integrating in very large numbers before the Holocaust. There might be something specifically wrong with the Muslim immigrant experience in Europe, or it might just be too early to tell. They're integrating fine in America.

I'd add there are degrees of integration involved here.

I think the difference in Europe is largely the fault of Europeans. Right now a new trend in the UK is receiving EU migrants who are second generation immigrants. They're not just Muslim, though German-Turks and French-Algerians are moving here there's also Dutch-Ghanians, but they're moving here because they think the UK is less racist and there are more opportunities here. Again I think it's an open-closed society thing.

One interesting strand of stats on integration is mixed ethnicity marriages and children. In the UK now we're at about the same rate as the US though we have far smaller minority groups. People of Pakistani and Bangladeshi are less likely to marry another ethnicity than other groups, though about 10% do. But it is accelerating and younger generations do it far more and mix with other groups far more. So if there's a difference with Muslim migration and integration I think it may be more to do with pace than anything else. One thing that's no doubt helping is that increasingly London state schools are the best in the country and educational achievement for all groups, but particularly ethnic minorities, in London is increasing hugely.

Black people were uniquely subjected to a lot of abuse throughout American history, so they get a history month that most people forget about and that forces the History channel to dig up a documentary on the Underground Railroad and some other stations to maybe play Roots.

Yeah. Which is another point. It seems a bit rich to moan about black history month for talking about one history based on racial identity when the entire reason there's a different history for that groups is their racial identity.

[Malthus]

Actually it does. You will note that I always included references to institutions and habits when referring to culture. What your relationship to other people in society, what institutions you participate in and how you participate in are culture too. These things have everything to do with GDP. GDP is a measure of the resources available to a society, not just individuals. It turns out that this is very culture dependent. 

That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with "multiculturalism".

Mukticulturalism is a set of policies concerning respect for the cultures of others (within the laws), whether or not those cultures are condusive to a greater GDP.

here you are confusing culture with race, and suggesting the silly idea that your race determines which habits you cultivate, which instutions you participate in and how you treat people and society around you.

How, when I have never even once mentioned race?

Can Shariah Juristpruedence or Confusian Patriarchy or an Indian Caste Structure make any beneficial contribution to Western (for the lack of a better word) culture? I say no. Can they improve our society, I say no. The migration rate between western societies and islamic, confusian and hindu societies suggests that anybody who has to stake his or her future on the proposition agrees with me.

The ideas that man belongs to god, that father (and the president) know best and you were born to be a fish monger (or whatever) do not deserve respect or even the pretense of respect.

I say let them bring their cuisine, music, games, poetry, art and genetics with them. Our societies will be all the better for them. However the central ideas which we base our western society on, that man is an individual and can choose his purpose in life, that the common facts we use to decide on the choices our society makes are the material facts discoverable by investigation, that the law applies to all people equally and that sovereignty lies with the people, are not to be treated as one among many. This is the bedrock that our societies rest on.

Divided societies never produce equal outcomes, period. Different means Divided, Divided means Separate and Separate certainly doesn't mean equal.

You say "no" to aspects of other people's cultures you don't like, or think are unproductive. That's great. Thing is, even if you are right, why should your opinion overrule that of the people who wish to abide by Chinese, Hindu or Islamic norms - assuming they keep within our laws? If you are right, we are all destined to a more of less unified culture anyway, by operation of free choice.

The issue addressed by multicultural policies is whether your opinion, or those of the European-based majority you represent, ought to have legal significance - above and beyond the basic rights already enshrined in the law - that "bedrock" you speak of. How on Earth can you at one and the same time mouth respect for people to choose their own path in life, and yet wish to legally disadvantage people who choose a path not to your liking because it fails some test you set for utilitarian benefit? If utilitarianism is your test for what is worthy, then at least have the courage of your convictions and admit you don't really respect people's rights to choose - when they make choices you dislike.