Tweet
Originally posted by Drachasor
The American Model works perfectly well in Europe. As you've noted however, it simply isn't being used by anyone. Europe went with the philosophy of letting every new group have their own seperate communities and making no effort to integrate new peoples into the pre-existing culture. This is easily seen to be a destructive and counterproductive way of dealing with things.
The American Model works perfectly well in Europe. As you've noted however, it simply isn't being used by anyone. Europe went with the philosophy of letting every new group have their own seperate communities and making no effort to integrate new peoples into the pre-existing culture. This is easily seen to be a destructive and counterproductive way of dealing with things.
If you pay attention to what the rioters say, then you hear them talking about how they WANT to be considered French.
All of us rely upon our sources. Mine indicate that the very last thing the rioters want is to be "French."
yet they are discriminated against because they aren't "really" french.
There's little more natural to human beings than ethnic tribalism. It takes real effort to break those bonds. Only in the Americas has there been even a smidgen of success. I remains convinced that what north african immigrant communities in France are truly seeking are their own ethnic enclaves. They do not share "french" values nor do they wish to share "french" values. They abhore "french" values.
The murderer of Theo Van Goh in Holland did not, with a knife-blade, pin a note to the film director's half-dead body reading, "Please hire more muslim actors."
Diversity is, indeed, very dangerous. It has its benefits but it isn't to be indulged lightly. One must respect its hazards and downsides.
If anything this shows that the American system of dealing with diversity--allowing a great deal of diversity but uniting people under common themes of justice, freedom, etc--works.
[quote]Acting like people coming into the country are part of their own little culture and have not become part of yours doesn't work.[/quote[
Exactly. Problem is, that is the natural state of Man you describe. The American experience is quote unatural, for the reasons outlined above.
You have a curious definition of "legitimate." I'll grant that there are reasons for xenophobia, even evolutionary incentives. That's different than being legitimate. It's different from being logical as well.
If no muslims were alowed into Holland, Theo Van Goh would not be dead. That's a "legitimate" reason not to let any Muslims into Holland. Doesn't mean it's a sufficient reason. That's a matter of plusses and minuses -- a question of trade-offs. Are the benefits of muslim immigration worth the life of a mediocre Dutch film director? Well that's a delemah missing from Civ 4. One I would like to see represented.
More religions should generate more culture since the "mixing pot" of ideas and concepts is much more powerful in such a city.
You confuse cause with effect. Freedom of thought (or faith) is the source for both the marketplace of ideas and the resulting multiplicity of religion: the positive and negative trade-offs that are the product of a free society. To enjoy the benefits of freedom, one must accept that it comes with costs and risks.
When people are free to think for themselves, they're sure to come up with a host of new reasons to hate each other's guts -- not just wonderful inventions and artworks. It's interesting to note that Henry Ford made two major contributions to American Culture: the motor car and a book on why Jews are scum.
Now, I can see the theocracy civic being adjusted so that there are penalties for multiple religions in the city, but in this case Theocracy would have to give more bonuses.
Remember, when you think of a "Theocracy," you are liable to think of places like Iran. But you might also think of a place like Canada, where Holocaust deniers are thrown into prison and preachers who read from Deuteronomy (passages about men not "lieing with men as with women") they get fined. A religion is really just a world view and a Theocracy is any place where a single, dominant world view is married with state power -- and sometimes enforced under threat of death or imprisonment.
I can see adjusting the game so there are some motivations for doing such a thing. This should be civic-based however, and if you pick different civics then more religions is a positive thing and not a negative.
Perhaps suddenly throwing in religious intolerance (or showing intolerance after Free Religion has been discovered) should risk generating unhappiness in the target city.
Japan is more likely to fade away into nothingness as mental dystopia sets in.
There's a difference between culture and nationalism.
Patriotism is the love of one's own culture, as it is represented in the state. Nationalism is love of one's own culture as it is represented in the people.
This is the principle difference between Europe and America. Americans are patriots and Europeans are nationalists. If your culture is the state, the people are interchangable. If your culture is the people, it's the governments that come and go -- but the people are not at all interchangable.
Comment