3 ms·
That’s the same thing. They feel that their culture is too weak to assimilate foreigners
by chaostheory 4y ago
That’s the same thing. They feel that their culture is too weak to assimilate foreigners
- mc32 4y agoThat does not make sense. When the Normans took over England over the decades they replaced the local culture and upset the language. It's not that England was "too weak" it's that the numbers meant the local culture would be absorbed. We can say the same about Taiwan after the '49 revolution and how it lost its Austronesian identity now it's mostly a Han culture. Modernization has similar effects but locals can modernize in their own way rather than import wholesale a new culture (India vs China).
- chaostheory 4y agoAll of the examples that you’ve cited are just examples of “melting pots”. Culture wasn’t destroyed. It simply evolved. To my knowledge, the English do not speak a dialect of French Even if culture was destroyed, I don’t see it as a bad thing. Different languages and cultures are a barrier to empathy and historically it’s been a leading cause of conflict and violence. It’s too easy to “other” people whom you can’t communicate easily with Preserving culture at all costs for its own sake is backwards and it prevents progress
- mc32 4y ago>Preserving culture at all costs for its own sake is backwards and it prevents progress I dunno. Lots of groups even within the US lament their culture being overrun by US pop-culture or mainstream culture. Are these people wrong and counter-productive?
- chaostheory 4y agoA sub-culture is not the same as culture. Ultimately, these groups are still American at the end of the day. Still, if the price of losing culture reduces the probability of conflict, I will gladly pay it.