- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,914
- Reaction score
- 22,235
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Well, what do you think, is Chinese an ethnicity?
Well, what do you think, is Chinese an ethnicity?
Well, what do you think, is Chinese an ethnicity?
Using the exact definition, no. Chinese is a nationality, not an ethnicity. Using more colloquial terms, yes, Chinese is an ethnicity. Approximately 95% of Chinese are the same ethnic group (Han).
China is a much more homogeneous society than most large countries. If you asked that question but replaced Chinese with Indian, American, Indonesian, Pakistani, Brazilian, or Russian, then I would definitely say no. Those countries are all melting pots. But if any large nation can plausibly make the claim to being a single ethnicity, it is China.
Do you honestly believe that the Han are as homogenous as you imply?
Well, compared to the multi-cultural mess some of us laughingly call the us the chinese would certainly qualify as both unified and nationalistic. These are two ingredients for a very successful society, and it shows.
...The US has always been a melting pot,...
Not any more it isn't. The idea of assimilation created the melting pot and created a unique people. But assimilation is dead as an idea in this country. The American Left rejects assimilation and embraces multiculturalism. Multiculturalism killed assimilation and unity. The American Left wants a mixing bowl instead of a melting pot. Unity dies that way.
Not any more it isn't. The idea of assimilation created the melting pot and created a unique people. But assimilation is dead as an idea in this country. The American Left rejects assimilation and embraces multiculturalism. Multiculturalism killed assimilation and unity. The American Left wants a mixing bowl instead of a melting pot. Unity dies that way.
...And what is it exactly that makes unity and assimilation more desirable than multiculturalism?
Assimilation and multiculturalism have always gone hand in hand, and I don't see any evidence that recent immigrants today are less assimilated than their counterparts in the past. People who want to come here generally want to become Americans, but the first generation (and perhaps the second) retains some aspects of their own country's culture as well. Furthermore, immigrants often come with a network of contacts in their home countries. For example, that's how India became the IT hub of the world; Indian-American engineers started outsourcing work to people they knew back in India. This was beneficial to both of our countries, as well as the individual workers.
The diversity of the United States is a huge part of what makes our economy vibrant, and a huge weakness in homogeneous societies like China or Japan.
I would argue that the demographics of the US are far more favorable than the demographics of China, in the long term. The US has always been a melting pot, and it's served us well. We've attracted people from all over the world, and they've brought with them some of the best ideas from their own cultures (and sent some of the best US ideas back to their homeland). Our diversity means that American businesses dominate the international markets, since Americans have roots (and therefore business contacts) in every part of the planet. China, by contrast, suffers from some huge weaknesses: The inability to excel in any truly multinational business due to lack of a diaspora, a population that mostly speaks no language other than Chinese, a tendency towards xenophobia, and an ethnocentric focus on China when looking at international business, economics, or politics.
I don't mean to badmouth China, because the country certainly does have many strengths...but I don't think their homogeneity is one of them. There is something to be said for diversity.
I see. So the American Left was against integration?
The truth is, people tend to self-segregate themselves into communities based on race/color/ethnicity and people who have a common background with them, and this serves as a barrier to interaction with people of different backgrounds. Any attempt by an outside force (the government) to integrate schools, housing communities, etc. is seen as oppressive and unwanted intrusion into personal lives (and I definitely don't blame anyone who thinks this way, because it is).
We have a mixing bowl instead of a melting pot because sociologically speaking, people tend to interact and be with those who have something culturally in common with them. This has nothing to do with right or left. And what is it exactly that makes unity and assimilation more desirable than multiculturalism?
It's called balkinization. It can lead to bad consequences. This is an example. History is repleat with them.
History is also replete with examples of thriving multicultural societies. Consider the Pax Romana or the Mongolian Empire. All it it takes is a little tolerance on the part of the majority.
It's called balkinization. It can lead to bad consequences. This is an example. History is repleat with them.
You are confusing Imperialsm with multiculturalism here.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.