Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Just because some sociologists have came up with new ways to call people racist, doesn't mean that they should be validated.Deleted User wrote: »Scholars and theorists need to continue adding ideas and expanding concepts to stay relevant for funding, and professor positions.
Ah yes. Those Goddam pesky sociologists. What would them money-hungry, egg-head scientists know? Sure they only have to make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, field research, and publish in peer reviewed journals. Its not like they would know what constitutes cultural racism as well as the posters here. /s
Surely though some cultures are incompatible.
The history of the world and actuality of the world we live in now shows all kinds of religious, cultural and sectarian conflicts within societies and countries that lead to civil conflict, and sometimes civil war. Northern Ireland is an example.
Northern Ireland is an example of cultures that were thought to have been incompatible learning to co-exist with one another. The North is a very different place today with a power-sharing government than what it was during the height of the Troubles.0 -
Or a realist when considering the breadth of world history and the conflicts of same. The major difference being that A) cultures change, "races" do not.
there are no fundamental differences of potential intellect and capabilities between populations C) cultures can most certainly be incompatible around things they both hold so dear, if from oppossing sides D) and this is the stumbling block as we've seen, one can respect cultures, but at the same time see where they're lacking in comparison to "our" own. That goes both ways too. Again - and because it has been studiously avoided - to take the same local Irish baseline and the same "race", but a cultural difference over time. I am quite sure while you might see plenty of positives you would consider the attitudes and mores of 1940's Ireland towards women, Gays, foreigners, Choice and a few others to be inferior, sorry, negatives when compared to the attitudes and mores of 1940's Ireland towards same. I doubt you'd use the "ah well maybe they thought they were positive and superior" angle, but we'll see. Further, would you see those same attitudes and mores of 1940's Ireland as being incompatible with the majority in 2020's Ireland? Same "race", just a difference of a few decades. Barely a short whizz into the ocean of human history. Put it another way; would you be all happy to see say 80,000 of such 1940's Irish people and their cultural attitudes show up and create enough of a voting bloc to possibly change things back? And like I say it can go both ways too. This would be actual cultural relativism in play if we want to be truly objective here. Not so easy as we all have our biases, the ones that confidently claim they don't usually have more. No matter what their personal politic. 1940's Ireland's culture would be horror struck and breaking the glass on the emergency Rosary beads box at the thoughts of the 2020's Ireland of Gay rights, contraception, SSM, Choice. Never mind the "permissive society" and Sexual Revolution. Attacks of the vapours, Novenas of Grace, pulpits exploding all over the place and seventeen Hail Marys and ten Our Fathers. Would their cultural attitudes be equal to ours, not inferior or superior, just because they hold them dear and believe so fervently in them? Or are they a "blank slate" that we can write upon in our own image? There can certainly be an element in that going on. More's to the point, if we go the route of "cultural relativism" of no judgement of cultures because it's all subjective and racist and nobody can truly judge; How can you hope for culture to improve for more people living within it and not just the majority view? Further; how do you know your attitudes and mores are the right ones? That right there is the major problem with laissez faire philosophies, they are mired in their own inaction and can't progress, or progress comes slowly. As I noted on another thread when folks were talking about culture and dodgy notions and how we are as individuals; you are not a sexist, homophobe, racist and all the rest, not because it came somehow magically to you. It almost certainly didn't. Those that start the fight against their culture wishing to change things are a tiny minority. You're not all of those things because you live in a culture that informed you that these were incompatible with your culture, that judged that they were, wrong. We can 100% certainly agree there that actual racists may twist it to their own ends in an attempt to hide their tracks. Though many theories can be twisted, it depends on who's doing the twisting. Even neutral scientific theories. Darwin a classic. I don't think there's a politic who haven't had a go at mashing that square peg into their self constructed round hole. From Communists to Fascists and all points between. Though I will say I would hold a candle for the progressive types as they tend to genuinely and optimistically, if naively IMHO, feel that things aren't so determinist and that there's always hope. They can irritate me, but by god they generally make for better company, and better neighbours. The "right" tend to cling to a twisted form of Darwinian determinism, ranting about doleheads and "their" taxes, where they naively believe in the perfect society they'd be the ones ending up on top. QV Libertarians. Sorry sunshine, you're not John Galt.
You have been called out for these posts by the main moderators before, Wibbs:pickarooney wrote: »No, Wibbs. You don't simply get to lay down the rules and drag people into endless, tiresome, pages-long back and forth with no discernible aim apart from victory through exhaustion.
You want to validate ugly stereotypes and mean-spirited judgements through whatever links and references you deem fit for purpose, knock yourself out. But don't pretend you actually believe in equality of opportunity while espousing these prejudices.it seems no straight answers are forthcoming
Don't be surprised if posters with a life outside of Boards don't have the time to dissect, decipher and respond promptly to these meandering posts in the thread. If you wish to redefine what cultural racism is, then go ahead and change the definition on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_racism See how long it survives before the majority correct it back.0 -
-
-
-
-
SchrodingersCat wrote: »Ah yes. Those Goddam pesky sociologists. What would them money-hungry, egg-head scientists know?
Before I started working in Universities, I had a high opinion of PHD holders and the research that was released. Since then, however, that respect has become rather selective.. because there's a ****-ton of politics involved with, both what's funded, and what's published. Oh sure, many people get to publish their ideas in niche magazines, but to reach the point where others of your specialty are reading/writing... conformity to certain ideas is required. That was different forty-fifty years ago, as the avenues for publishing were broader but we live in a much more regulated world now, where peer opinion becomes incredibly more important, especially when dealing with social issues..
As for what they know or don't know... any time I see a paper on racism or most social issues, I tend to consider bias. You should too.Sure they only have to make use of tried and true methods of research, such as experiments, surveys, field research, and publish in peer reviewed journals. Its not like they would know what constitutes cultural racism as well as the posters here. /s
That's what? The third time you've posted the same link to that definition of cultural racism. I had thought you might have provided some links to prove the idea to us, and counter our objections, but nah...
Even within the link you provided, it assigns a small segment for clarification:
"“Cultural racism” is not yet a standard label in the race and racism literature, especially in the United States. It is virtually absent in the anthropological literature and has only recently appeared in the U.S. sociological literature (Bonilla-Silva 2003). It is more common in the European literature (Modood 2005) and among U.S. scholars familiar with European debates on race (Wylie 2001). Yet even when scholars use the term “cultural racism,” they do not necessarily employ it in the same way."
Let's try a segment from one of these scholars:
"Precisely for the reason that we have, these days, so much racism yet so few racists, cultural racism is not, in most cases, propagated by people whom we would want to label "racists." The doctrine is theory, not prejudice. Those scholars who advocate one or another form of it are people who believe that they are dealing with facts, and with the policy implications of these facts. Most of them reject prejudice and are not prejudiced. They simply believe that there are straightforward empirical reasons, grounded in cultural differences, which explain why some groups and individuals are backward"3 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I can't speak about others but I'm very unapologetic about my cultural racism.
Actually, I don't appreciate the term. It's intended to guilt trip people into thinking there is something wrong with it.
Let's call it "objective cultural evaluation"
*I'm perfectly aware that I quoted myself.0 -
Actually, I don't appreciate the term. It's intended to guilt trip people into thinking there is something wrong with it.
Let's call it "objective cultural evaluation"
*I'm perfectly aware that I quoted myself.
I agree. There's a lovely phrase I picked up years ago. "Language structures consciousness", and it applies well here. The use of language affects the associations we make and the manner of our understanding.
Linking racism to criticism of a culture is ridiculous and should be challenged at every opportunity. Same with the phrases like mansplaining, or whatever new term is introduced to set the narrative and marginalise others opinions on a topic. We have seen how various movements have sought to alter the meanings of words or invent new ones to benefit themselves (usually with a massive application of double standards). This is more of the same.
Sociology should be taken with an extreme pinch of salt. There are layers of biases and agendas within the whole "discipline", especially if people consider that sociology is where Radical Feminism and race theorists found a place to develop their theories, but present them as fact.1 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement