Unfortunately its not an “and or proposition”. Ethnic groups in those countries lived and worked together for centuries. The Balkans had a huge amount of intermarriage.
Did not stop the bloodletting.
Well depends. A few signs in tourist-heavy areas downtown or signs for historical purposes (ie ones in French for New Orleans) are different from having every last signs for cul-de-sacs be multilingual.
There is a difference between countries (such as Canada and Switzerland) that had multiple dominant languages from its founding as opposed to the United States where English has always been the single language of prominence. Even the former are not that amenable to incorporating new official languages-try asking the Swiss about immigrants for example. That said, the trend in general has been to move towards a single language in order to facilitate national unity, communication, and commerce-one need only look at particular dialects of French and German becoming standard throughout those countries. Additionally countries that successfully established an official language tend to be less plagued by secessionism and other political nuisances one observes in Quebec, Catalonia, or even in the obnoxious “Swedish party” in Finland.
Teddy Roosevelt certainly didn’t think so:
IIRC there was just as much violence, but more personalized, one-on-one violence. Roman circus style games with high body counts, eugenic euthanasia and so on. People responded to the lack of tribal-based outlets for their vicious impulses by inventing other ones because - people.
Lots of Danes in Greenland. But then there are not that many Inuits left (if any) which don’t have a Danish man as a forefather going back a few generations. You see a lot of white, blond, blue-eyed native Inuits on the streets of Nuuk these days. The language/culture is now half Danish anyway. So they’ve certainly been diversified.
But for some reason when whites are doing it, it’s called cultural appropriation. Lego got a shit storm their way a few years back when they made a series about Mauri warriors. But when you google Valhalla or Ragnarok you get a shitload of stupid Japanese Manga, and Hollywood took Thor of thunder and war, and turned him into a goddamn girl – and that’s called progressive.
“Cultural appropriation” is if not blatantly stereotypical/offensive generally part of cultural cross-fertilization.
Would this be because Lego used the tapu names of an active, and historically oppressed by Whites, culture, whereas the only Asatru around nowadays are revivalists and the original Norse weren’t exactly an oppressed minority? And it’s not like the Japanese don’t catch fire for some of their more tone-deaf assimilations (like that Manga rom-com starring a personified Nazi Germany)
It’s about asymmetry of power and historic injustice. Or just brown folks being uppity, your call.
Um, firstly, can you give an example of leftists saying this, and not just right-wingers thinking that leftists say this? I wonder if this is all straw and misunderstanding.
And secondly, the issue here may be that right-wingers are confused because progressives and leftists are not monolithic. There’s more than one way to be for reform. So there are those of us who want opportunity for all, open borders, and so forth–and are naturally pro-diversity. And there are anti-imperialists who want to roll the French, English, and Dutch back out of Africa, who are perhaps not so much leftists as other opponents of the dominant power structure.
Oh, boy. Hollywood did not turn Thor into a girl. A New York comic book company turned a woman into Thor. (Like three times.) Also there’s been a frog Thor, a freaky alien Thor, and another guy who was Thor for a while.
Marvel’s Thor is weird, has been from the first story. It’s a status gained.
:rolleyes:
The problems of the “Nobel savage” and its connotations make that problematic, not the mere fact of usage.
Western media in general and Hollywood is particular seem incapable of presenting non Western people as normal, fully rounded human beings. (One of the few which did a good job was “Mind Your Language”, which ironically was lambasted for being racist).
Historical injustices have happened to all. For example do Italians and Spaniards have the right to complain to North Africans about the slave raids by the Barbary Coast pirates? And if “asymmetry of power” was consistently applied, upper-middle class liberal comedians in New York or California have no right to mock working-class white “rednecks” in Appalachia or the Ozarks.
Oh man, the oppressed victim parade in full swing. Yeah, I’m gonna call brown people being uppity on that one, if those are the only two options you leave me. Although I think it speaks volumes about your point of view when the only two positions you leave brown people are 1) victims; 2) uppity.
Can’t seem to remember when Lego or Denmark was going around oppressing Maories either. Perhaps you can fill me in on that one, or is it that because the Brits are white and Danes are white (Lego employs more people in China, than in Denmark so I don’t know what it is) – some of the Brit guilt rubs off on Danes, the same way for instance that when some blacks in Rwanda committed genocide some of that blame rubs off on black dudes in New York, and in six generations we’ll be well within our bounds to tell them off on that account?
Having a fair amount of life under my belt, I can say that on many occasions I’ve felt richly blessed to have had friendly interactions with folks of other races along the way. And yet, one would be naïve if one thinks that in the work place (where I’ve been witness to it a number of times) that if a spat occurs over something, and it’s between people that are not of the same race, the first thing that comes out from beneath the veneer is an ugly “us versus them” mentality. It’s like everybody’s walking around in racial gasoline up to their ankles while smiling and doing their best to keep things friendly and then – BOOM! Some jerk lights the match!
I think in theory and as an ideal to shoot for, Diversity is for sure a good thing and it can move the human condition forward and make the world a better place to live. But just watch-out for the jerks because it’s easy as can be for them to come along and destroy the goodwill between folks that have worked long and hard for it by just one crummy utterance from their lips!
Not really, no, and certainly not to the same extent. Did you miss the fact that the Maoris are still a minority whereas the Vikings don’t exist any more?
Sure, at the time it happened and for as long afterwards as it was still impactful.
We’re not discussing humour here, we’re discussing cultural appropriation. If an upper-middle class liberal comedian developed a character who was a working-class white “rednecks” and the butt of the joke, then there would be a case for cultural appropriation.
And I’m not discussing rights in a legal sense here, only moral rights.
Who’se that, the Maori or the poor Vikings?
No surprise there.
You’re always free to choose your own third option, since I don’t control your keyboard.
I don’t think they’re the only two options available to them, I was sunlight-disinfecting your stance.
It’d be around the time they started using culturally-significant Maori names for profit without consideration, consultation or sensitivity…
Oh, wait, are you saying it’s OK to fuck a minority over, so long as it’s the first time your group is doing the fucking? Never mind how many times they’ve been fucked over before by other people?
Most diverse or least Black? If you have looked at these statistics, is there a point beyond which becoming predominantly non-Black correlates with functioning less well?
“Helps build up their economies”? “Meddling”? The history of US involvement in South America in particular has been a little more than “meddling” and “helping with the economy”. And they haven’t forgotten it, even if we have.
Define “language of prominence”. Because despite English being the first language there also used to be a helluva lot of German speakers in America (the Muhlenberg legend notwithstanding), much as now there are a lot of Spanish speakers.
I don’t think “diversity” is particularly tied to strife or splits anywhere. The Tutsi and the Hutu are, objectively, the same ethnicity. They speak the same languages, live side by side, intermarry, practice the same religions-- from an anthropological standpoint they have none or he markers of different ethnicity. In “ethnic” strife, ethnicity is rarely the actual cause.
Ethnicity, religion, class, politics, caste, geography- when weak states rely on patronage networks of any kind to survive, they are going to create power blocks that create splits. The problem is political.
Japan is 98.5% Japanese. Most people would consider that as a 'lack of diversity".
Would you say that there are any non-diverse nations on earth?
Regards,
Shodan
A lot of them do have one official government language, though: yours and mine are among the exceptions.