3 ms·

I think the qualification of how to label the matrix parent mentions is irrelevant. The chart clearly exists and has been used. Whether we call it something lik

I think the qualification of how to label the matrix parent mentions is irrelevant. The chart clearly exists and has been used. Whether we call it something like 'race conscious equity generator' or 'oppressed totem pole' is just a way to polarize each side of the spectrum ( and adds to the point GP made about whether it is just a play for making people fight over relatively stupid stuff ). The point is that points for being $race and $class exists. As a society, do we want to fine tune everything to ensure that our individual mix of variables are accounted for or do we want individual to adjust to societal mold? It is a real question. For school, that clearly values obedience to the mold and passivity ( for better or worse ), I would assume the latter.

solardev 3y ago
Are you talking about assimilation vs maintaining cultural heterogeneity (like "melting pot" vs "salad bowl" models)? (Sorry, it's a bit hard to keep track of which post/point is a parent or GP or such. Not sure if I understood your point correctly.) I think this is more about opportunities than conforming, like whether we could have a system that provides supplemental resources (whether it's tuition or teaching aid or job opportunities or whatever) to people who have the same drive and merit as anyone else, but for whatever reason was given a significant handicap early on. That just lets them get into an organization to begin with. What they do with their participation, whether it's to conform or rebel or something else, is a separate (but still fascinating) question, I think? There is this idea that diversity will automatically lead to change. Sometimes it does, but yeah, sometimes people just choose to assimilate and stay quiet instead.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Hmm, I was initially talking about assimilation, but as you mentioned heterogeneity ( as opposed to a cultural monolith ), I realized that the two are related in this instance. In a very practical sense, US 'melting pot' was something of a myth. Yes, people from all over the world were coming and parts of their cultures were assimilated, but the general expectation was that the immigrants adjust to the way of life in US -- not the other way around.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Yeah, that was true of my parents' generation (boomers) and to a lesser degree mine (millennial). But I think these days they tend to go for the cultural preservation model (salad bowl with discrete ingredients mixed together) more than the melting pot. To me it seems pretty messy and a recipe for democratic disaster and polarizations, but I think that line of thought is considered old fashioned and possibly wrongthink at this point. I've just never heard of multiculturalism successfully working over the long term (vs assimilation), but that's all the rage these days. I guess I'll see how it pans out...

solardev 3y ago

Are you talking about assimilation vs maintaining cultural heterogeneity (like "melting pot" vs "salad bowl" models)? (Sorry, it's a bit hard to keep track of which post/point is a parent or GP or such. Not sure if I understood your point correctly.) I think this is more about opportunities than conforming, like whether we could have a system that provides supplemental resources (whether it's tuition or teaching aid or job opportunities or whatever) to people who have the same drive and merit as anyone else, but for whatever reason was given a significant handicap early on. That just lets them get into an organization to begin with. What they do with their participation, whether it's to conform or rebel or something else, is a separate (but still fascinating) question, I think? There is this idea that diversity will automatically lead to change. Sometimes it does, but yeah, sometimes people just choose to assimilate and stay quiet instead.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Hmm, I was initially talking about assimilation, but as you mentioned heterogeneity ( as opposed to a cultural monolith ), I realized that the two are related in this instance. In a very practical sense, US 'melting pot' was something of a myth. Yes, people from all over the world were coming and parts of their cultures were assimilated, but the general expectation was that the immigrants adjust to the way of life in US -- not the other way around.
- solardev 3y ago
  Yeah, that was true of my parents' generation (boomers) and to a lesser degree mine (millennial). But I think these days they tend to go for the cultural preservation model (salad bowl with discrete ingredients mixed together) more than the melting pot. To me it seems pretty messy and a recipe for democratic disaster and polarizations, but I think that line of thought is considered old fashioned and possibly wrongthink at this point. I've just never heard of multiculturalism successfully working over the long term (vs assimilation), but that's all the rage these days. I guess I'll see how it pans out...