In this paper, I will look at the subject matter of English language and the relative importance it stages in the sphere of globalization and cultural homogenization. The usage of English lan.
I often hear discussions of why it is important to conserve different cultural perspectives, and how multiculturalism is valuable, and why global homogenization is bad... But I don't get it.
It seems like it would make sense, but from a logical standpoint it seems like less divergent cultures would be better. I have just spent some time thinking about it, and everything I find on the internet is either really vague or assumes I already agree with it. So I am hoping that the users at CMV will be able to give me a new perspective on the issue.
Also just to clarify, I'm not in favor of forcing people to abandon their own idea or cultures or anything like that. I just don't see a reason why it is particularly worthwhile to try and preserve divergent cultures instead of letting them just meld in whatever ways they wish.
The spread of the latin alphabet seems like a big plus, and if it keeps spreading and other writing methods become extinct I don't really see the harm. The same goes for the frameworks of civil law. I don't see anything too valuable being added by stuff like movies and TV being massively exported from countries like the US, but at the very least the provide a common reference point for different people all around the world which is pretty cool.
So, CMV!
Edit: So far I am very intrigued by the discussion unfolding and all of it has come from /u/Toptomcat, so I just wanted to write this since I think it's worthwhile to recognize good contributions to discussion.
Of course im not defending stupid nationalisms but some forms of local cultures and traditions (the ones worth maintaining) specific of every region. Of course there has always been exchanges and influences but would global comunism at least allow these exchanges to be on the same levelling field without a hegemonic cultural force influencing all the rest?
The most recent controversy is turning Angrboda, a canonically white cultural figure, black. No explanation given, she's just black. As far as I know, it isn't controversial to say that there are no ethnically black North Germanic peoples (which is where Norse mythology originates).
So you can advocate for this, but in my view, it would be illogical to then say it's inappropriate to turn, say, an African mythological figure white. You should agree that this is also appropriate, since doing so doesn't have any rational or logical basis. The reasons for doing so are based, in my view, in white guilt centered around contemporary race politics in which inserting diversity for diversity's sake has become the norm. It's less relevant when we're talking about contemporary media, but I believe cultural canon should be respected.
The earliest visual depiction I could find of Angrboda is here, which is from a painting from 1889. So she is canonically depicted as being fair-skinned. But in my view, this also isn't all that relevant, as it could be called common sense that cultural figures from an ethnically homogeneous region would share the physical traits of the people of that region. Again, going back to the example of African mythological figures, you shouldn't need a visual "canonical" depiction of a mythological figure in order to argue that they should share the physical traits of that population, given that the character is humanoid in appearance. And I would wager that if a character was "whitewashed", using this argument wouldn't hold any sway over those who would oppose said whitewashing. So we have another double-standard.
But at the end of the day, on a more basic level, it simply doesn't make sense to change the apparent race of an established cultural figure, or any fictional character. Was there some kind of mad scientist who kidnapped them and performed a strange series of procedures on them in order to make them a different race? It doesn't make sense in the context of the canon.
So in short, my view is that while it doesn't make sense on several levels to change the apparent race of an established cultural figure, if you nonetheless want to argue that creators should be able to, it makes logical sense to agree that you would also be okay with "whitewashing". If you disagree, you necessarily have a logical inconsistency.
I am not sure how to better phrase this question. I've seen posts here about how SAP schools are elitist because they only accept Chinese students who score well. This is a very simplified explanation. However, that got me wondering about Madrasahs. Why are Madrasahs different/not part of the conversation on the homogeneity of schools?
One possible reason I can think of is that they have a different curriculum with an expectation of Islamic studies. However, how about SAP schools? Don't they also have a focus on Chinese culture (or an attempt thereof)?
Does this mean that if everyone in an SAP school were forced to take a Chinese-specific course, it would better justify their existence?
I understand that covers a huge stretch of time. The Tang Dynasty is just an arbitrarily easier bookmark for my brain than the Sixteen Kingdoms.
In addition, I guess, when we refer to "ancient China", would that be closer to saying something like "ancient Greek world" or "ancient Europe"? I hope that makes sense, I don't know how else to word it in my Western brain.
I have read today this article about Palmyra: https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/home/oasis-palmyra
The author states:
> Without a doubt, our visitor would have seen a great deal to shake his sense of normalcy. In the Roman Empire, or rather the Greco-Roman Empire, everything was uniform: the architecture, houses, written language, clothing, values, authors, and religion, from Scotland to the Rhine, the Danube, the Euphrates, and the Sahara, at least among the elite. Palmyra was a city that felt, by contrast, dangerously close to Persian civilization, the great enemy of Rome, and to even more remote places.
Was the rest of the empire really so homogeneous, or would a visitor be equally surprised by the local architecture and culture in other provinces?
I often see things like “Ancient Egyptians believed…” and same for Ancient Greeks or other civilizations. Did essentially every ordinary person in these civilizations really adhere to the same religious/belief system?
It would be crazy to say “Twenty-first century Americans believe you go to heaven after death,” without further specifying the demographic. Are we exceptionally more diverse than cultures were in the past?
I was thinking of doing a combined Vlandia/Battania run with heavy infantry and heavy cav from Vlandia supported by a Sharpshooter/Fian tag team on range and Battanian skirmishers since they're located adjacent to one another it's easier to replenish my forces and I dont have to cross the entire continent to fully rebuild if I take heavy losses.
But I also don't want to be the guy who just takes the best stuff from multiple factions because it breaks my immersion too heavily if I have say banner knights, khanate mounted archers and also legionares
Hi everyone!
Since I received such an incredible response to my questionnaire on expression of gender identity a couple of weeks ago (thank you so much to anyone who filled it out!), I'm helping out a friend with her own questionnaire in the hopes of getting a similar response! She's posted it a couple of times but hasn't received many responses. If you've got a few minutes to spare to fill this out, it would be really helpful - it is contributing to our major research project for the HSC Society & Culture course. Thank you in advance!
Hello! My name is Kathleen. I am a 2021 Society and Culture student studying the comparison of homogenous vs heterogeneous cultures influences on the formation of identity. If you fall within the age groups of Generation Z (ages 6-24) and Generation X (ages 41-56) and are Australian, I would very much appreciate it if you could fill out my questionnaire it should only take ~3-5 minutes, all answers are anonymous.
Thank you so much, have a nice day!
Questionnaire: https://forms.gle/FUdNhLsXDMbPWGL79
The world economy is reliant on things from every other part of the world. Together we can meet every human need, but only together. Technology brings maximum efficiency and abundance, which ends scarcity, which ends the need for governments to adjudicate property or law enforcement to enforce the law to protect the scarce private property people fight over. Technology can make everyone endlessly wealthy sustainably. But only if everyone works together.
In order to collaborate at that level of magnitude, people always need to be unified with a common sense of identity because it gives them a shared sense of purpose. Our sense of purpose needs to be to master physics and medicine so that we can engineer solutions to end all human suffering. If trends continue we should be able to do that really soon. So we should. Otherwise competing factions will race to the bottom out of desperation to win and their lack of flexibility and stubborn rigidity will lead to tensions and worse, possibly losing everything.
Not only should we globalize ethically to end poverty, climate change and suffering... we should globalize for selfish reasons because we will all live such a better quality standard of living from the boon collaboration provides.
In particular, I feel that the extreme rate of change in the last century coupled with modern media technology (recorded voice, film and television) have made it that the monikers have morphed into strange tribal identities more than "periods of our lives" (e.g. youth, old age, middle age).
Was there any such naming during say renaissance Italy, or ancient Greece? or was it more like a moving treadmill of age as it should(?) be?
