Are all cultures equal is a question that faces us in the post-modern West. It is the basis of understanding "life" and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And since Americans believe that all men are created equal, as far as their innate similarities. There are also differences that are formed by the cultures that men inhabit. These are not ultimately equal in my opinion.
Our country believes that humans have an "inalienable right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a civil right that is determined by the individual, himself.
As our culture allows for divers viewpoints, we affirm the individual's right to own his own life, be responsible toward himself and our society. The responsibilities that our citizens must maintain are those that form our laws. We are equal under law, so we do not believe that anyone is "above the law", or should "subvert the law". We should be law abiding citizens.
But, today, there are those that believe that citizens should be mandated by the government to be their brother's keeper. This is what our liberal policies create and further; irresponsibility of individual citizens. Taxes go to "help" those so unfortunate.
The problem with viewing another as "unfortunate" is that this becomes his own self-perception. And that hinders his desire to become responsible. It "feeds" an unhealthy behavior through giving an unhealthy message.
Although domestic policy has been "damaged" by furthering the "welfare STATE", it is no less so with foreign policy.
Globalism tends to be formulated around multiculturalism. Although multiculturalism should be affirmed as a part of individual identity, it should no be condoned when it comes to universal standards. Why?
Universalizing what is particular deminishes the "ideals' needed to form unity or universal goals. Universal goals should be about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And these goals should be informed by individual differences, gifts and interests, not by some "cultural form" that inhibits individual growth, or ego development.
Are all cultures equal? Yes and No. Yes, as far as a culture is internalized, but not all are healthy environments for developing individuality. So, No, as far as the universal ideals of individual liberty that upholds responsible and self-governing "selves" as the greatest goal of culture.
Showing posts with label multiculturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label multiculturalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Multiculturalism and Postmodernity
Some in academia affirm multiculturalism. Multiculturalism limits one's ability to make distinctions and judgments. It is a hodge-podge of reason within context and culture defined equally.
All cultures are NOT equal. This is what concerns me about Obama's "submission to the U.N, I am committed to human rights as upheld by a democratic form of government. Obama said that he was going to uphold our values. Let's see how he does this in this multicultural melieu.
I do not believe that American interests will or can be upeheld IF China or those that undermine freedom in their own countries are allowed to lead or have an equal voice in international policy. If these countries don't believe in "free government", then why would they support policies that allow laws that undermine their values of "control" or domination?
Even if Obama doesn't support totaltalarian regimes, if he greets them similarly as those that are really our allies, what is the reward for their change? Are those behind the scenes so connected to criminal acitivity and corruption that organized crime really is holding the reigns of power internationally?
I would not be surprised if we found out that the powerful monied people are those that run drug rings, casinos, and brothels. I am saddened that our great nation has left her bearings in the Constitution for a dubious future.
All cultures are NOT equal. This is what concerns me about Obama's "submission to the U.N, I am committed to human rights as upheld by a democratic form of government. Obama said that he was going to uphold our values. Let's see how he does this in this multicultural melieu.
I do not believe that American interests will or can be upeheld IF China or those that undermine freedom in their own countries are allowed to lead or have an equal voice in international policy. If these countries don't believe in "free government", then why would they support policies that allow laws that undermine their values of "control" or domination?
Even if Obama doesn't support totaltalarian regimes, if he greets them similarly as those that are really our allies, what is the reward for their change? Are those behind the scenes so connected to criminal acitivity and corruption that organized crime really is holding the reigns of power internationally?
I would not be surprised if we found out that the powerful monied people are those that run drug rings, casinos, and brothels. I am saddened that our great nation has left her bearings in the Constitution for a dubious future.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Which Way?
I have been fascinated by American Creation's blog site. They have been discussing many issues concerning our Founding as a nation.
Which way is best to understand our present reality? Realism , Critical Realsim, or Instrucmentalism?
Realism makes absolute and universal claims about what humans know, understand and value (or should value). Realism says that we perceive everything the same way. It is a correspondence view of Truth. History happened in the real world. Scientific facts are facts.
Instrumentalism understands "what works", is more pragmatic in its assessment, as it is focused on "outcome". Instrumentalism is a kind of "social contruction" about reality. The real is what leaders say is real. History is interpreted by these to assure outcomes.
Critical realism says that although reality is "out there", we cannot know it absolutely. We only know "in part", as we are within certain contexts of history, societial, and personal. This being the case, the critical realists must evaluate what he chooses to value as "ultimate". These are the "ideals" that our Founding Fathers viewed as "most important".
The Quadralateral affirms different ways of "being in the world". Some understand through reason and make their evaluations about life based on reason's assessment. But, reason is still interpreted within contexts of one's experience or expertise. We cannot get away from various contexts.
Though tradition and scripture are the interpretive lens of understanding culture, these are not absolute, either. So, those in leadership must strategize, using their reason, about what outcome is to be valued and work to formulate how policy helps to form that outcome.
The outcome today is multicultural, and global. The multiculturalists values reason within contexts, while the critical realists understands that everyone's culture, cannot be the one and only outcome, as we must choose what is of ultimate importance.
We need critical realists that will defend Western civilization from its demise.
This morning it was reported that Germany is at odds with America over a NATO attack that killed Afghan citizens. Globalism creates division where it concerns the West's interest, because the West has bought into the multicultural "worldview where the West is dismissed on the basis of "imperialism", or "colonialism". The multiculturalists tries to rectify injustice through minority rights. And the unintended consequences is reverse discrimination.
Last night, on TV it was reported how the multiculturalists are re-writing our history, and labelling the heroes of our past with derogatory names, undermining thier work in building our culture of freedom and justice.
I think that we are headed for rough waters unless reason holds sway above multiculturalism. Multiculturalism will lead us toward communism, which undermines individual liberties. And individual liberties are only won under accountable and responsible leadership, who inform the public of the outcome, instead of "winning" through sleight of hand.
Which way is best to understand our present reality? Realism , Critical Realsim, or Instrucmentalism?
Realism makes absolute and universal claims about what humans know, understand and value (or should value). Realism says that we perceive everything the same way. It is a correspondence view of Truth. History happened in the real world. Scientific facts are facts.
Instrumentalism understands "what works", is more pragmatic in its assessment, as it is focused on "outcome". Instrumentalism is a kind of "social contruction" about reality. The real is what leaders say is real. History is interpreted by these to assure outcomes.
Critical realism says that although reality is "out there", we cannot know it absolutely. We only know "in part", as we are within certain contexts of history, societial, and personal. This being the case, the critical realists must evaluate what he chooses to value as "ultimate". These are the "ideals" that our Founding Fathers viewed as "most important".
The Quadralateral affirms different ways of "being in the world". Some understand through reason and make their evaluations about life based on reason's assessment. But, reason is still interpreted within contexts of one's experience or expertise. We cannot get away from various contexts.
Though tradition and scripture are the interpretive lens of understanding culture, these are not absolute, either. So, those in leadership must strategize, using their reason, about what outcome is to be valued and work to formulate how policy helps to form that outcome.
The outcome today is multicultural, and global. The multiculturalists values reason within contexts, while the critical realists understands that everyone's culture, cannot be the one and only outcome, as we must choose what is of ultimate importance.
We need critical realists that will defend Western civilization from its demise.
This morning it was reported that Germany is at odds with America over a NATO attack that killed Afghan citizens. Globalism creates division where it concerns the West's interest, because the West has bought into the multicultural "worldview where the West is dismissed on the basis of "imperialism", or "colonialism". The multiculturalists tries to rectify injustice through minority rights. And the unintended consequences is reverse discrimination.
Last night, on TV it was reported how the multiculturalists are re-writing our history, and labelling the heroes of our past with derogatory names, undermining thier work in building our culture of freedom and justice.
I think that we are headed for rough waters unless reason holds sway above multiculturalism. Multiculturalism will lead us toward communism, which undermines individual liberties. And individual liberties are only won under accountable and responsible leadership, who inform the public of the outcome, instead of "winning" through sleight of hand.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Dis-Solving American Identity
Multiculturalism is based on the local and the specified. It is an individualized understanding of groupish identification factors. Multiculturalism's values are not "value free". Multiculturalism makes no "judgements" because prejuidice is the ultimate "sin". Multiculturalism is devoid of reason's "judgment" because of 'imperialistic and post-colonial paradigms of "meaning".
Although I wholeheartedly agree with our 13th and 14th Amendements to the Constitution, as to slavery, I do not think that subverting American ideals in the name of multiculturalism is to be the epitome of "unification of the world". The globalist would disagree. And the globalist is a postmodern in the ultimate sense of the word.
If postmodernism "rules", then there is no leadership, because leadership is based on direction, decision and commitment. Unfortunately, those in the halls of academia have led us down the postmodern paradigm, because of understanding the value of context. Understanding context is an important demension of understanding the whole, but is not the whole. Postmodernism bases their commitment to the local and communal aspects of the world. And I think the evangelical has been duped by the academic community in accepting the 'whole of postmodernism in the name of pragmatic good, but dissolved of universal value.
The universal's that our Founders affirmed of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be upheld for each individual conscience. The individual in our society was held supreme, as he was made in God's image and had inalienable rights. But, with the acceptance of evolutionary thinking applied to the social sciences, and history itself, the Academy became culprits of multicultrualism, and postmodernity, for the sake of these universal ethical ideals.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding context, locality, or individuality, but these values do not affirm the values that should fulfill a leadership role and function. Leaders evaluate, analyze, and cultivate an understanding of the best of 'what is". Decisions leaders make are based on analytical, and strategic ways of understanding the world. The multicultural and postmodern way of understanding the world is an emphathetic way of understanding the world.
A world leader cannot lead unless these styles of understanding are all implemented. We cannot tell Israel to "do what she will" with Iran; not speak forthrightly to Iran about human rights; and ignore the democratic process of voters rights, without undermining democratic ideals and our Founders values as understood in the Constitution.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with our 13th and 14th Amendements to the Constitution, as to slavery, I do not think that subverting American ideals in the name of multiculturalism is to be the epitome of "unification of the world". The globalist would disagree. And the globalist is a postmodern in the ultimate sense of the word.
If postmodernism "rules", then there is no leadership, because leadership is based on direction, decision and commitment. Unfortunately, those in the halls of academia have led us down the postmodern paradigm, because of understanding the value of context. Understanding context is an important demension of understanding the whole, but is not the whole. Postmodernism bases their commitment to the local and communal aspects of the world. And I think the evangelical has been duped by the academic community in accepting the 'whole of postmodernism in the name of pragmatic good, but dissolved of universal value.
The universal's that our Founders affirmed of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be upheld for each individual conscience. The individual in our society was held supreme, as he was made in God's image and had inalienable rights. But, with the acceptance of evolutionary thinking applied to the social sciences, and history itself, the Academy became culprits of multicultrualism, and postmodernity, for the sake of these universal ethical ideals.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding context, locality, or individuality, but these values do not affirm the values that should fulfill a leadership role and function. Leaders evaluate, analyze, and cultivate an understanding of the best of 'what is". Decisions leaders make are based on analytical, and strategic ways of understanding the world. The multicultural and postmodern way of understanding the world is an emphathetic way of understanding the world.
A world leader cannot lead unless these styles of understanding are all implemented. We cannot tell Israel to "do what she will" with Iran; not speak forthrightly to Iran about human rights; and ignore the democratic process of voters rights, without undermining democratic ideals and our Founders values as understood in the Constitution.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Identity, Liberty, and Multiculturalism/Postmodernity
Many in the academic world have made much of the "talk" of postmodernity, or multiculturalism. This view affirms what defines "context", "groups of identity", and the values that these adhere to in behavioral standards. While I agree that all groups have to be defined, and that identification factors are not invalid, is there something that is "more" important and on what basis does one determine what is most important?
Yesterday, I wrote about how I was struck by Jenny Sandford. She had defined herself apart from these group identifiers, at least in her principles. She was able to evaluate a situation that was very personal from an objective viewpoint. She has her boundaries, although she respected others their right and understood that right in giving a "negative response" to the press.
Last night I listened to one of the contributors on a blog site I follow, American Creation. His name is Jonathan Rowe. He is libertarian in political commitment, but the others on this blog site range in their political commitment from fundamentalist evangelical, Mormonism, to agnostic. These political commitment are direct corrolaries to their individual understandings of the Founder's intent in regards to American principles.
Jonathan said that the Establishment Clause has not been definitively defined by the Supreme Court. The Establishment Clause has to do with religious freedom and the State and whether our country is a "Christian nation" or not. The Founders personally had various religious convictions, or commitments. This is why I believe they were libertarian in their understanding of religious traiditions.
While religious freedom defines our founding and protected the individual's conscience within a group identity, I am concerned about these very freedoms being undermined when it comes to certain ideals, as it concerns the Enlightenment. These ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal. But, is the universal personal, or is the universal communal?
I believe that the universal is personal within a communal/universal context. Therefore, individual/civil liberties trump communal/religious rights. This view protects or upholds human rights. And I believe that those who value women should adhere to this view. Traditions do not value women, for the most part.
Does the State protect religious conviction when human rights to education, medical care, and dignity are de-meaned, ignored, suppressed or subverted? And yet, where will religious freedom be, if there is not freedom from State intervention? Civil liberties protect both human rights and religious freedom. Freedom of conscience as it regards these issues is the most important value, in my opinion.
So, today's discussion is over the individual/personal, group identification/ multiculturalism, postmodernity/ modernity, dichotomies. Where do you think the lines should be when it comes to religious freedom, individual conscience, multiculturalism, immigration policy, assimilation, etc. All of these issues are at stake in our free society. We must address them to remain free.
Yesterday, I wrote about how I was struck by Jenny Sandford. She had defined herself apart from these group identifiers, at least in her principles. She was able to evaluate a situation that was very personal from an objective viewpoint. She has her boundaries, although she respected others their right and understood that right in giving a "negative response" to the press.
Last night I listened to one of the contributors on a blog site I follow, American Creation. His name is Jonathan Rowe. He is libertarian in political commitment, but the others on this blog site range in their political commitment from fundamentalist evangelical, Mormonism, to agnostic. These political commitment are direct corrolaries to their individual understandings of the Founder's intent in regards to American principles.
Jonathan said that the Establishment Clause has not been definitively defined by the Supreme Court. The Establishment Clause has to do with religious freedom and the State and whether our country is a "Christian nation" or not. The Founders personally had various religious convictions, or commitments. This is why I believe they were libertarian in their understanding of religious traiditions.
While religious freedom defines our founding and protected the individual's conscience within a group identity, I am concerned about these very freedoms being undermined when it comes to certain ideals, as it concerns the Enlightenment. These ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal. But, is the universal personal, or is the universal communal?
I believe that the universal is personal within a communal/universal context. Therefore, individual/civil liberties trump communal/religious rights. This view protects or upholds human rights. And I believe that those who value women should adhere to this view. Traditions do not value women, for the most part.
Does the State protect religious conviction when human rights to education, medical care, and dignity are de-meaned, ignored, suppressed or subverted? And yet, where will religious freedom be, if there is not freedom from State intervention? Civil liberties protect both human rights and religious freedom. Freedom of conscience as it regards these issues is the most important value, in my opinion.
So, today's discussion is over the individual/personal, group identification/ multiculturalism, postmodernity/ modernity, dichotomies. Where do you think the lines should be when it comes to religious freedom, individual conscience, multiculturalism, immigration policy, assimilation, etc. All of these issues are at stake in our free society. We must address them to remain free.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Richard Beck's Monsters and Hospitality and World Affairs
Richard Beck's "Experimental Theology" blog is an interesting blog site by a Christian psychologist. He has recently been talking about "monsters and hospitality". He identifies our psychological responses/reactions to these monsters, as a projection of self. This morning's report on the news made me wonder about this theory's practicality, when it comes to world affairs.
Prejuidice is the result of an "us/them" dichotomous mind-set. Social psychologists understand the dynamics that lead to humanitarian disasters, like genocide. Although humanitarians may desire to break down the walls of these identifiying barriers to "commonality", these identifiers are a necessary boundary line that defines "self" and "other". "Monster" is a term that Beck identifies as a "them", less than human label. Without identifiers we cannot discriminate or think, make decisions, as we must make judgments when we determine a course of action, which demands that we make distinctions. Multiculturalism leads to a non-discriminatory mind-set.
Today's news, as well as recent news, has made me wonder about the wisdom of this type of thinking. Russia is now expected to locate bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba is 80 miles from American shores. What are the reasons? Are we the "monster" and why?
Just last week, Great Britain's prime minister, George Brown, came to meet with our President. Great Britian is one of the closest allies to America. The usual dinner meeting as couples did not occur and a statue of Winston Churchill, a hopitable gesture, was sent back to Great Britian. I do not understand why this action occurred.
In Beck's terms, how are we to not believe in monsters in this world. We must, if we don't want the annihlation of our identifying factors. I think America's identifying factors are worthy ones, but that doesn't mean that some in our system have abused them. Americans, for the most part, are a generous, hospitable, and friendly people. Other nationalities may see us as arrogant, opinionated, rude, crude and naive.
Our seeming arrogance and opinionatedness, is just what our culture allows and condones in our "freedom of speech" and our individual freedoms. We speak our minds, but we also welcome others to as well. Our seeming rudeness is just our lack of sensitivity to a difference in culture, as we, for the most part, are allowed individuality within our culture, so what is a traditional "manner" is not even on the 'radar" of an American. And our naivete' is only because we believe in the American Dream that all men can attain and meet their highest potential, so we are optimist, for the most part. We have a 'can do attitude".
As I defend our cultural misconceptions, I do not deny that we Americans need to understand others a little better, as we don't get "world news" for the most part. And our nation's largness and diversity lends itself to belly gazing without regard for diversity abroad. So, to those whose traditions have been offended, tolerance is a value that could benefit you and your country, as graciousness is about tolerance. And we need graceousness and tolerance to live in this world.
Prejuidice is the result of an "us/them" dichotomous mind-set. Social psychologists understand the dynamics that lead to humanitarian disasters, like genocide. Although humanitarians may desire to break down the walls of these identifiying barriers to "commonality", these identifiers are a necessary boundary line that defines "self" and "other". "Monster" is a term that Beck identifies as a "them", less than human label. Without identifiers we cannot discriminate or think, make decisions, as we must make judgments when we determine a course of action, which demands that we make distinctions. Multiculturalism leads to a non-discriminatory mind-set.
Today's news, as well as recent news, has made me wonder about the wisdom of this type of thinking. Russia is now expected to locate bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba is 80 miles from American shores. What are the reasons? Are we the "monster" and why?
Just last week, Great Britain's prime minister, George Brown, came to meet with our President. Great Britian is one of the closest allies to America. The usual dinner meeting as couples did not occur and a statue of Winston Churchill, a hopitable gesture, was sent back to Great Britian. I do not understand why this action occurred.
In Beck's terms, how are we to not believe in monsters in this world. We must, if we don't want the annihlation of our identifying factors. I think America's identifying factors are worthy ones, but that doesn't mean that some in our system have abused them. Americans, for the most part, are a generous, hospitable, and friendly people. Other nationalities may see us as arrogant, opinionated, rude, crude and naive.
Our seeming arrogance and opinionatedness, is just what our culture allows and condones in our "freedom of speech" and our individual freedoms. We speak our minds, but we also welcome others to as well. Our seeming rudeness is just our lack of sensitivity to a difference in culture, as we, for the most part, are allowed individuality within our culture, so what is a traditional "manner" is not even on the 'radar" of an American. And our naivete' is only because we believe in the American Dream that all men can attain and meet their highest potential, so we are optimist, for the most part. We have a 'can do attitude".
As I defend our cultural misconceptions, I do not deny that we Americans need to understand others a little better, as we don't get "world news" for the most part. And our nation's largness and diversity lends itself to belly gazing without regard for diversity abroad. So, to those whose traditions have been offended, tolerance is a value that could benefit you and your country, as graciousness is about tolerance. And we need graceousness and tolerance to live in this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
