Jibble

Author Topic: Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)  (Read 3011 times)

Andail

  • Global Moderator
  • Cultured man of mystery
    • I can help with backgrounds
    • Andail worked on a game that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Topic:
Multi-culture is bad for the society

Short and simple.
Jimi & Shattered is pro
Unilin & MrPanda get the first post

go for it

edit: Sorry, Panda, I'm been killing too many braincells lately
« Last Edit: 03 May 2003, 18:42 by Andail »

Matt Brown

  • the poster formally known as Panda
Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & Evil)
« Reply #1 on: 03 May 2003, 16:53 »
first of all, I'm going to assume that by evil, adnail ment me again, as thats whats on the schedule.

It is imperitive for a nation, or any society, to be able to have different cultures, for political reasons, economic reasons, and more the progrssion of the society itself.

Firstly, let's take a look at the political aspect. For simplicity's sake, Let's take this from the presepective of a country. Many nations have tried to purge themselves of other cultures, in an attempt to achive some sort of complete solidarity. Like, , China, until the 1970s. China tried to eliminate the influence of other cultures, (namely the west). By locking itself away from the rest of the world, China suffered huge retartations in growth in techology, economic growth, and medicene. It's huge population starved. Eventually, they learned that they had things to learn from other cultures, namely the west again, so it could feed its people, and succede in world affairs.

Secondly, there is economics. This closely is tied with the the first. When a society stays withen itself, products produced or ideas created by others are not used. The inabilty to work with others prohibits one from being able to make the most amount of money, or to prosper.

Finally, and most important, is for the society itself. We learn to tolerate and understand others by being around them. If we all sat around and talked and learned about other cultures, bigotry and hate would be afar less prevelant. The culture of the society would be enlightend, and it would be a far better place to live.

We need other people to survive. No man, or society, is an island.
word up

Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpongE VS Unilin & Evil)
« Reply #2 on: 03 May 2003, 18:05 »
  As Andail did specify that we would be debating the effects of multi-culturalism on society, I shall focus on this point and bring up economic and political arguments only if they should become relevant.  Also, by multi-culturalism I will assume that we are talking about the mixing of races and religions within the same society (for the sake of argument, let's just say a country) rather the interaction between soceities of different cultures, which is always going to happen anyway.
  Basically, the sad fact of the matter is that humanity is divided into groups; the way in which society has evolved has resulted in differences between religions and races defined by mere phenotypes - this is not the way things should be, it is the way things are.  While these seperate groups exist, there will always be conflicts between them, and though one may hope that by bringing them together we can help improve the understanding between them, the reality is that it only makes people uneasy.  Racists and those belonging to religious groups with violent disagreements with other religous groups almost always have there beliefs programmed into them from birth and bringing them closer to the targets of their hate, making direct conflict between them FAR more likely.  These people simply have to be seperated from one another in order to stop them from hurting each other.
« Last Edit: 03 May 2003, 18:09 by Shattered Sponge »

Matt Brown

  • the poster formally known as Panda
Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #3 on: 03 May 2003, 21:17 »
I am afriad that I must beg to differ with your comment about how people are programmed at birth to hate certain people. Humans are not born hating. Humans are only born knowing how to cry. Humans are taught to hate by their enviroment, usually by their family or mis-guided peers.

Hate is usually becuase of a misunderstanding, (i.e Hitler hated the Jews, b/c he felt the was a worldwide plot for the jews to overthrow the rest of the world.) Interaciton between people sets away these myths, and hate disolves. A man might have a black man, or a Mormon, or what have you, but by interaction and humaniazation, (where one sees that the object of his hate has many things in common with himself), hate disapates.
By having different cultures live, and work together in one society, what they share in common is learned, which leads to a construtive living and working conditions.
word up

Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #4 on: 03 May 2003, 21:31 »
Different cultures belive in different things. This can cause conflicts between the cultures, whether it is religious, or or not. Take September the 11th as an example. Asama Bin Laden had different beliefs to Americans, so he decided that to show how strongly he felt, he would bring down some of the largest buildings in New York. The actual suicide bombers were taught to fly in America, if it was not for multi-culture, they would not have been taught, and most probably not do what they did.

We do not need multi-culture to survive. Take world war 2 into consideration. America looked at the Atlantic ocean as a mud puddle: No one would be able to attack, etc America due to it's existance. It hardly ever got attacked. Once at Pearl Harbor, and Once on september the 11th. But they managed just fine without the influence/aid of other cultures.

If we hadn't created Iraq, Saddam Hussain wouldn't be it's dictater. We created it because we thought we were helping that culture, but we did nothing but create something to slowly destroy.
« Last Edit: 03 May 2003, 21:33 by Jimi »

Matt Brown

  • the poster formally known as Panda
Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #5 on: 03 May 2003, 21:46 »
9/11 was not caused by multi-culture. It was caused by a fanatic who had a haterd for America and the west which was unfounded. Jimi, are you suggesting that america should not have let the terrorts learn to fly because they are Arab? That doesn't really make sense, since America was built on the notion that all men are created equal, and that no race be better then another. If the terrrorists couldn't fly, they would find some other way to exploit america's weaknesses, like driving a truck, or car bombs. Car bombs have been used by terrorists forever.

Also, the whole anlantic ocean thing. Since the invention of the airplane, having a huge chunk of water seperating you from other countries doesn't hepl much...all you have to do is fly. Also, the revolutionary war took place on the american mainland. how did the brits get here? By boats. Lots of boats. If America wan't afraid of being attacked now, we wouldn't have bothered to fight any wars.

Also, the military might of America didn't happen over night. Americans didn't invent gunpowder, the Chineese did. We didn't invent the tank, or the AK-47, but we use them. The atomic bomb was developed in America....by an itailian and a German. Without the inventions and ideas of other cultures, we would have be nothing.

Heck, look at me. I'm using AGS...developed by a non-american. See, if I refused to interact with people of other cultures, I wouldn't even be here.
word up

Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #6 on: 03 May 2003, 21:55 »
  If you'd read my post properly, Panda, you'd have realised that I said people have their predujices programmed into them FROM birth, not at - as you said, ignorant parents and peers are often to blame, but so is the society that humanity has built for itself; it encourages grouping based on irrelevant attributes and separation between these, and unfortunately we have gone so far into this mindset that it is impossible for we as a race to get out of it.
  Your argument that by placing conflicting cultures together they will start to understand each other is unfortunately too idealistic - if you put a nazi skinhead and a muslim in the same room, they aren't going to discuss their differences over a cup of tea and begin to understand the reasons the other is the way they are - they are going to beat the living shit out of each other (either the skinhead will start upon the muslim because of his race issues, or the muslim will become scared and nervous of that occuring and will attack the nazi before he gets the chance).  If you were to take this on a mass scale, although there would be those who indeed do change, there will always be some who merely vent their misguided beliefs through violence, which creates more unease between the races, which encourages people on both sides who normally would have taken the sensible view to 'stand up for their race', which results in even more violence ad infinitum.

Matt Brown

  • the poster formally known as Panda
Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #7 on: 03 May 2003, 22:04 »
Sponge, you are correct that at first, there would sitll be conflcit. However, one has to look at the alternitive. If we were to completely remove other cultures from our own, thus creating serveral tiny groups of cultures, momentary peace might occur. But as time gows on, people will begin to wonder why they aren't living together. People would think that if both races were equel, there would be no reason to stay seperate. This sort of attitude creates culture-hating of an even larger scale. Then, whats to stop one race from trying to destory another "inferior" one?

Communication is vital to keep these sorts of radical, misplaced thoughts in check. Its a lot easier to hate somebody when you have never met one, only hearing horror stories about them.


where the crap is my partner?


« Last Edit: 03 May 2003, 22:34 by Mr.Panda »
word up

Unilin

  • Devourer of Worlds
Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #8 on: 04 May 2003, 08:15 »
Hmm, almost forgot about this.  Thanks to Scid for reminding me.

Now, then.  Multiculturalism in any society is a decidedly good thing.  Different cultures have different viewpoints on many subjects and having a variety of different viewpoints is a key element in effective self regulation.  The problems that one set of eyes might miss, another will spot easily.  Were one group alone to be involved in all law and policy making, then it would be unable to reliably police itself.  Bad laws would be made much more often and possibly not go corrected until the results became serious.

What's more, diversity is the fuel of development.  Were everyone to conform to a single culture, then there would be fewer sources for ideas, invention and inspiration.  Conformity serves only to bring stagnation to the scientific and artistic communities alike.  It is the influx of the new clashing against the old that drives people to create new things and develop exciting, groundbreaking theories.

Multiculturalism also teaches acceptance and tollerance.  The main reason for racism is fear of what people do not know or understand.  They grew up among their own people with their own traditions, never experianceing or even seeing the outside world.  Eventually they are bound to encounter something from another culture, and it may be so radically different from what they are used to that they fear it.  If they are then forced to live with this on a constant basis with no education as to why they do not need to fear it, the fear will build.  Eventually, out of instinctual self preservation (despite the fat that they're not actually in any danger) they will attack the source of that fear.  This can be expressed as anything from not speaking to the person (people) to beating them half to death.

By embracing a more multicultural society, they will be exposed to the various cultures more often from an earlier age and so will learn to tollerate one another more readily, resulting in a substantial drop off in hatred and racial violence.

There is a biological imperitive to multiculturalism as well.  Different groups will have different sets of antibodies and natural resistances.  The more diverse a society, the more variations in the biology and the more chances there are that certain individuals will prove immune or resistant to any great plague or other natural disaster.  A multicultural society will be more likey to survive any given holocaust than one in which all the members are alike.
"He is the deadliest man alive and I want him dead."  -- The Boss, Ett Buttert Utter

Nothing in the universe is certain, probably.

Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #9 on: 04 May 2003, 14:24 »
The point I am making is that it is due to multiculturalism that 9/11 happened. I am not saying that we should give any less attention/choices to othe rcultures, I am just saying that perhaps if it wasn't for multicuklturalism, we may not have tried to "help" less economicallly developed countries, then ended up doind nothing more than prolonging the enevitable.

Perhaps if multiculturalism was not favoured by so many people, less tragedies would befall the world. A recent example is the SARS virus that started in South-East-Asia. Did that not get to America, England, Holland, etc by travellers? Would these travellers have come to these contries if we had the majority had not been in favour of multiculturalism? NO!

Matt Brown

  • the poster formally known as Panda
Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #10 on: 04 May 2003, 14:53 »
Jimi, which undeveloped nations/cultures are you refering to? Some examples please
word up

Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #11 on: 04 May 2003, 16:35 »
Mainly places in Africa, that suffer from draught. They depend on us to give them food. What happens when we can't supppley them with what they require, becuase if we do, we won't have enough to feed our own country? Anyone who has traveled here, (from that naton/culture) could commit another attack like the ones we have seen in the past, which not only proves that the consequences of multiculturalism are mainly bad, but would spark off any number of riots, more attacks, and basiccaly crime. All down to multiculturalism.

Matt Brown

  • the poster formally known as Panda
Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #12 on: 04 May 2003, 16:56 »
firstly jimi, not to move off-topic, but could you please try a little harder on your typing? Your typos and misspellings make it hard for me to read what you write.

anyways, back to what you said. at least, what I think you said. What nations tend to do for other, more developing nations is provide loans, or trade, rather then give outright dough or food. (although groups not international groups, like the UN or the Red Cross, which are composed of several different cultures across the world trying to help everyone, often do) Giving loans, or trading, (food for oil, for example) makes sense both economically and politically for both nations. Both America and the nation is question get something out of the deal. America gets the product, (dimonds, oil, clothes, etc.) and the other nation gets food, and hopefully, people to teach them and help them get back on their feet. Also, having an unstable, starving nation is not good for the international community, as those are the types of places where terrorists tend to come from, or rebels and civil war.
Indifference from the more prosperous nations to other culture's plights cause anger from people. Those who have the most, can share the most.
Aid to developing nations will make them more stable, and help them get on their feet, not cause riots and crime like you suggest. where has that happened before? which nation in Africa attacked a world power due to cut-off aid? Starving nations in the middle east attack America not because we dont aid them, but because the country has been unable to hepl itself, and radicals have come to power with religous hated towards the west, caused partly by their inabilty to communicate with them. Something that could be fixed by multicultalism.
word up

Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #13 on: 04 May 2003, 17:13 »
Sure, it could be fixed by multiculturalism, but for how long will that last? By attacks that have happened before, I meant attacks on certain cultures in general. These can be sparked off by cut-off aid. Also, it can start off hatrid, or racism which would trigger more attacks.

An example of multiculturalism going bad is "wild west" America (don't know what best to describe it as). The cowboys (also can't think of a better word to use) wanted to have a multicultural society with Native Americans. They traded guns, and metal products, for medicines, or for them to give them some knowledge of America, or medicines, etc. But this just triggered the following:

1) The Cowboys gave the Natives illnesses from England that Natives were not immune to, and did not know how to cure.

2) A difference in opinions started fudes, which then led to war.

The war could have been prevented by anti-multiculturalism, and presumably there would have been less casualties if we had not traded firearms, and knowledge of the land.

Matt Brown

  • the poster formally known as Panda
Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #14 on: 04 May 2003, 17:25 »
no, the cowboys never realyl wanted multiculturism. Right from the get-go, most ameicans thought that the indians were "savages", and not as human as they were. Any trading that went on was just a cover for their ultimate goal: to conquor their land, so America would reach from sea to sea.

What you have descibed is something called imperialism, where one culture feels it is better then another, and trys to conquor it. This is NOT multicultialism. The former is one destoying the other and plundering it. The later is mixing of the two, and providing an free exchange of ideas, inventions, and such. The former is horrible for society, and is a byproduct of ignorance. The later can only do good.

The cowboy/indian problem was worsened by a lack of multicultualism. The only times cowboys or indians appeared in each other's cultures were when they were demonized.
word up

Re:Match 3 (Jimi & ShatteredSpong VS Unilin & MrPandal)
« Reply #15 on: 04 May 2003, 17:44 »
Sure, It started off as imperialism, but when the americans found about the natives, they knew that they knew about the island well, some remedies for sicknesses on the island, and also the tobacco plant was found here. (Maybe drug abuse wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't for the english finding it?). So they thought they could be friends with the natives. It would double thier knowledge, and may have more of a chance of surviving should they catch a sickness. But it ended up in the 2 points i mentioned earlier.