Why Are Only a Few Countries Required To Be Multicultural

[Caligulette]

That is a good one, though his proposed solutions are piffle. Good to have a lot of what was suspected/rumoured confirmed. (By "good", I mean "to know", not "that it happened".)

[Stormlight]

lol, well im not racist its just that i think if too many different cultures come into our countries we wont have any place to call home anymore! i am okay with non whites here but maybe like 20% only, USA is already only 2/3 white and going down fast!

[Stormlight]

Sorry about the above. I just wanted to save our little bigot some time by preemptively posting his next message.

Like here: GameSpot Forums - Off-Topic Discussion - Why Are Only White Countries Required To Be Multicultural?

[ceptimus]

[ShottleBop]

"Latin America for Latinos?" To give only a few counterexamples: Peru elected a President who was the son of Japanese immigrants. In Uruguay and Argentina whites are the ethnic majority. In Southern South America (the "Southern Cone"):

The main language spoken is Spanish (castellano) due to the Spanish colonization from the 16th to the 19th century; if one includes Brazil, Portuguese places a close second.

Autochthonous languages, spoken by some Amerindian groups include Mapudungun (also known as Mapuche) and Guarani.

Italian (mostly its Northern dialects, such as Venetian) is spoken in rural communities across Argentina and Southern Brazil. German in some dialects is mostly spoken in Southern Brazil, Southern Argentina and in some communities in Southern Chile.

Furthermore English is spoken in the Falkland Islands, a disputed territory between the U.K. (inhabited by British subjects) and Argentina. Welsh is spoken by descendants of immigrants in the Patagonia region of Argentina. Japanese has speakers in communities of Southeastern Brazil and Korean in the main cities. Portuñol, Portunhol in Portuguese, is a pidgin language of Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish that is spoken in the border with Brazil.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins?

I have. Like Caligulette, I found his solutions naïve, but it's very useful as an examination of what really goes on behind the scenes. It definitely sheds a new light on the coup plot to take over Equitorial Guinea. It seems that the financiers and major corporations have found the one weak link in the chain: Western nations cannot always be relied on to depose and assassinate leaders when the money people want to, even if those money people are as well-connected as Mark Thatcher, so they're moving to mercenary forces to get what they want.

[godfry n. glad]

Forgive me, but I view you both as relatively sophisticated in your analysis of the political economy. I view Perkins' work as being a fairly important aspect of what I perceive the US general public needing to know.

Those wonderous development programs are being sold to the US public as "international assistance", rather like an updated "Marshall Plan" for South America and Asia. Most members of the US general public have no idea how these WTO, World Bank and IMF strategies work. I think it was an excellent step in terms of educating "the average American".

[Caligulette]

I forgive your viewing me as sophisticated. You have not seen me eat yet.

Yes, the book does contain some very important information (even as Shock Doctrine does). However, the solutions are both naive and unworkable. They are (in both cases) a patchwork which will, under even the slightest economic strain, fall apart. Information is important- what is done with it might be even more so.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I forgive your viewing me as sophisticated. You have not seen me eat yet.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stormlight

LUXEMBOURG FOR LUXEMBOURGERS! WHY DO I STILL HAVE TO PRESS 1 FOR LËTZEBUERGESCH?

[Stormlight]

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

I forgive your viewing me as sophisticated. You have not seen me eat yet.

Yes, the book does contain some very important information (even as Shock Doctrine does). However, the solutions are both naive and unworkable. They are (in both cases) a patchwork which will, under even the slightest economic strain, fall apart. Information is important- what is done with it might be even more so.

Your eating is now part of your political economic analysis? That's...interesting. Idiosyncratic, but interesting.

So, I'm curious. What do constitute non-naive and workable solutions?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Press 1!!!??

Lëtzebuergesch got the 1?

I figured it'd be down there with Andorran and San Marinan....y'know, where you have to use the * and # keys.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

*Yoink* Stolen and added to the quote generator.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Forgive me, but I view you both as relatively sophisticated in your analysis of the political economy. I view Perkins' work as being a fairly important aspect of what I perceive the US general public needing to know.

Those wonderous development programs are being sold to the US public as "international assistance", rather like an updated "Marshall Plan" for South America and Asia. Most members of the US general public have no idea how these WTO, World Bank and IMF strategies work. I think it was an excellent step in terms of educating "the average American".

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that Perkins' book fills the valuable niche of books that will get people pissed off. And right now, being pissed off at the system is one of the most valuable and life-affirming things possible. John Pilger fills that same niche for me. His book The New Rulers of the World made me want to start the anarchist revolution by myself...until I was reminded by a friend of mine that a one-man revolution wasn't going to end well. Damn V for Vendetta for making it look so easy!

However, I think that offering constructive solutions is overrated. There's a post up at a blog called Stop Me Before I Vote Again which brilliantly summarizes my feelings:

The main thing, though, is to stop being constructive. Don't waste a moment thinking about what “policies” might be better than the ones we have. The fact is that the institutions we have absolutely guarantee insane policies, and unless the balance of power between the elites and the rest of us is changed, then those institutions will continue to manufacture insanity day in and day out.

And there is, needless to say, no institutional way to change the balance of power. The institutions exist to maintain the balance of power – or, more accurately, to tip the balance of power ever more toward the elites. Changing the balance of power requires interfering with the institutions, and impairing or impeding their operation.

In short: stop traffic.

Reformism is a tempting trap, but the point about there being no institutional way to change the balance of power holds across all governments, even the social democratic governments of Western Europe. That's why I view books like Perkins' as valuable but naïve in its belief for the capacity for and efficacy of gradual change. I might be wrong though. After all, I have not seen the system from the inside, and Perkins has. However, I don't think gradual change has ever accomplished much without the threat of revolutionary action hovering in the background.

[godfry n. glad]

So...Do you think that the "culture jamming" advocated by the clique around AdBusters is an effective technique?

Given the action at the Seattle WTO meeting in 1999, I had some hope that US ignorance of these types of trans-national thugs operations was getting some bashing and attitudes were changing. Alas, that was before the second Bush debacle. The World Bank and IMF continue in their nefarious activities unabated and WTO continues lurching on...

Was there not some economic theorist who, in the 1960s or 1970s predicted that the Soviet regime would fall and the subsequent power structure would align itself with the American-European nexus in an attempt to grab as much of the resources of the less developed world to run their new politico-economic juggernaut in a global north-south confrontation. Was that Gunnar Myrdahl...or maybe Kenneth Boulding? Or, somebody else entirely?

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Reformism is a tempting trap, but the point about there being no institutional way to change the balance of power holds across all governments, even the social democratic governments of Western Europe. That's why I view books like Perkins' as valuable but naïve in its belief for the capacity for and efficacy of gradual change. I might be wrong though. After all, I have not seen the system from the inside, and Perkins has. However, I don't think gradual change has ever accomplished much without the threat of revolutionary action hovering in the background.

Exactly so. As an example of what reformism will get you- the German SDP (Socialist Democratic Party- which is the same party who voted for war credits for WWI as well as offing Rosa Luxembourg) was in a coalition government with the Green Party recently. Under which coalition (practicing what is sometimes referred to as the "Third Way", which is reformism- in this case a wishfull conglomeration of quasi-socialistic and capitalistic ideas) there were huge cuts to jobs, social safety nets, and etc. It's a dead end.

The idea that it can be done incrementally, through influencing the parties and governments that are is ludicrous. One need only look at the ISO to see the amazing futility- by backing the Green candidates even in races where a socialist is running, and playing heavily on identity politics, they have managed to muddy the political waters. (The Greens, worldwide, are a capitalist party. This is inherently opposed to any form of socialism, and, in its more advanced forms, anarchism.)

NULL- You touch interestingly on the Cult Of the Individual which is inherent in a lot of dystopic fiction of late (V, among it). You might be interested in a few paragraphs of this recent review of the latest album of Trent Reznor, as it goes into that. Year Zero: Trent Reznor looks outside himself

The pertinent section:

The dystopian concept itself is rather limited. Why is it that in most dystopias the “hero” is usually just that, a lone individual fighting an unjust social order? The rest of humanity tend to act like mindless cattle, devoid of any individuality (or power of resistance) whatsoever. It is up to the lone warrior to combat this egregious state of affairs, against the odds, and against the prejudices of the brainwashed mass around him. This is a theme prevalent in most dystopian works, the recent film V For Vendetta among them.

Certain class prejudices make themselves felt. The middle class observer often combines ignorance or even fear of the mass of the population along with a degree of self-aggrandizement. He or she alone is immune from the brainwashing, he or she will “liberate” humanity. Such individuals congregate regularly in cafes and house parties, chattering flamboyantly about their “special” place in society. Former “radicals” of a certain age, they may look upon the defeats of the working class in the 1960s and early 1970s not as the outcome of the betrayals of its leaders, but the fault of the masses themselves. Various causes are posited, from “sexual repression” to “inherent consumerism.”

So, I guess that sort of also addresses Adbusters. Not buying is not enough. Neither is ad-altering, though it can be funny.

Also- as in the case of V (to say nothing of a number of non-fictional characters), the violence enacted tends to increase the governmental controls, playing right into the hands of the authorities who then have an example of Why We Need To Crack Down On Terrorists. Vigilantism does not advance freedom.

[godfry n. glad]

Lots of nay-saying, Caligulette. But what DOES advance freedom?

I'm looking for concrete actions.

[Caligulette]

Overthrowing the capitalist governments and forming socialist ones in preparation for the ultimate withering of the state. In a nutshell.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Overthrowing the capitalist governments and forming socialist ones in preparation for the ultimate withering of the state. In a nutshell.

That's pretty vague, actually, and, if realized, I'd be concerned that the outcome could very well be worse than what we have presently. Instead, I think that history shows that after the initial convulsions of revolution and the rise of new governmental mechanisms, reaction sets in in a big way. How do you prevent such from happening?

I am not convinced that socialistic government would be an improvement, nor am I convinced that it would a be a step to "the ultimate withering of the state."

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Overthrowing the capitalist governments and forming socialist ones in preparation for the ultimate withering of the state. In a nutshell.

ah, right...socialism should make it better, with its proven track record.

(explains things though...and the irony amuses me)

[Caligulette]

Mr Zeke, your lack of historical knowledge once again rears its ugly head.

The first five years after the Russian Revolution of October (as opposed o the Feb one) were not exactly paradisical, to be sure, but considering that there was a world war going on, and civil wars (funded in large part by the imperialist forces of Europe and even the States), a lot was accomplished. Had Lenin not fallen ill, and more importantly, Stalin (who was never much of a socialist) not seized power, things would have been different. There was a rather large Left Opposition (including Trotsky) within the Bolsheviki. Nothing quite like reactionary counter-revolutionary skullduggery and a dash of anti-semitism (along with assassinations and imprisonment/exile) to put the kibosh on a budding society.

As to how to prevent reactionism from happening- I do not think it can be avoided, but I do think it can be contained. A lot of that has to do with the level of political awareness of the general population. One has to recognize reactionary/counter-revolutionary elements in order to act against them. We have, unfortunately, a tremendous number of examples of these things, as well as some harsh historical examples about where the policies of a Stalin will lead. Knowing is important in combating.

As far as the withering of the state- I do think socialism (Marxist socialism) would lead to that. It is a process which involves educating people and putting the means of production into the hands of the producers- which would give them the means to control their own economic futures (as well as day-to-day safety), and so their political futures. It would not be a top-down democracy, it would be an actual governance by the workers. As people gain skills, education, and the awareness of the interconectedness of the global resources and community responsibility, the need for the state would be less and less. Ultimately, it would not be needed.

It is likely that there would be, if a bureauocracy develops, a push back from certain reactionary elements, this is where education, especially a knowledge of history (world history, not country-o-centric) is crucial.

[Qingdai]

The analysis in my family's circle of friends was that Russia was too politically and technologically backwards to be able to sustain a revolution. They did not have the infrastructure needed to keep Stalin in check. I agree that it's hard to go from being an uneducated serf in a monarchy to an educated worker in some sort of consensus driven society.
The same could be said for China and the Maoist revolution.
I suppose when the economy all goes to shit, we'll find out more.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

As to how to prevent reactionism from happening- I do not think it can be avoided, but I do think it can be contained. A lot of that has to do with the level of political awareness of the general population. One has to recognize reactionary/counter-revolutionary elements in order to act against them. We have, unfortunately, a tremendous number of examples of these things, as well as some harsh historical examples about where the policies of a Stalin will lead. Knowing is important in combating.

I'm in general agreement here, but I think we need to recognize that sources like Perkins are important in developing that political awareness. We just need to be aware of not dismissing it as General Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket! (1935), and his claims of an attempt to perpetrate a coup against the Roosevelt government by plutocratic industrialists, has been.

[Caligulette]

I do agree that he is important in developing the awareness of what. Of what to do, not so much. That is my quibble. The knowing being important for combatting stands, of course. Really, Perkins provided some concrete knowledge of how these things work. Knowing what is being done does two things in this case- one, it shows that the capitalist system is predatory; and two, it names some - big - names. These are very important lessons. It also is important that it comes from someone who actually did it- that it was, indeed, a confession.

It is a start. But where to go from there? In that area, Perkins is still deeply steeped in the land of revisionism.

He is also, for what it's worth, still friends with many of the people he worked with. One could ask (as one did when he visited my bookstore on tour (not me)) "How could you still associate with these people, knowing what you know about what they are still doing?" That he does speaks to where his interests still lie. He wants a more gentle capitalism, but what he fails to realise is this: Capitalism does not play gently.

Yes, his contribution to knowledge is valuable. No, his suggestions of what to do anout the situation are not.