Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 4:51 pm
First, the issue of *who started the war* is fraught. When one examines the full history in depth the problem becomes far more complex than the typical "the Nazis started it". And so it goes today: Who *started* the war in Ukraine?
I'll clarify then. By "starting the war" I mean committing the first act of armed aggression against another country or countries - invading it/them - using one's own country's military, when one was reasonably free not to have committed that act of armed aggression.
On that understanding, both the Nazis and the Kremlin started their respective wars.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 4:51 pm
[E]xamine what happens when all *rights* to define a nation or a people as being made up of specific people with specific traits -- i.e. what we normally define as 'race' and 'ethnicity' -- is erased and made immoral.
I understand that you see multiculturalism and pluralism as negative outcomes of social engineering. You have done much more research into all of this than I have, so I'm not really sure what to make of that proposition. Speaking based on personal experience though, I'm
comfortable living in a multicultural/pluralistic society. Through study and work, I've made friends with people whose ethnic heritage is Taiwanese, Hongkonger, Chinese, Lebanese, Sri Lankan, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Indian - and the list goes on - all without even having to go overseas. They're all lovely people making positive contributions to my society, and I've enjoyed studying and working with them and getting to know them. I have no desire to limit their presence here.[1]
[1] Edited to add: setting aside that this is really a matter for the indigenous sovereigns of this nation - it doesn't really matter what
I desire.
I don't see any benefit to doing so either. The only motivation for such a thing that I'd consider endorsing personally is the first one (which you quoted and on which you commented) from the list in my previous post, which I paraphrased from reading the book you long ago recommended to me by Pierre Krebs: Fighting for the Essence. I get the claim being made, and I get why others might personally endorse it, but I don't.
Why not? Because with respect to race, I don't so much share the belief that multiculturalism is inevitably going to obliterate via interracial breeding all racial distinctions, in part because most people marry from their own race anyway, but also because I suspect that different multicultural societies are likely to have different mixes of races, such that complete interracial breeding would result in different final forms in different societies anyhow, maintaining diversity.
With respect to culture, I think that Western cultures are anyway evolving, which is a good thing, and that they are partly doing this via synthesising elements from, or being inspired by, other cultures - a process which is enhanced by having physically proximal subcultures within those multicultural societies. I don't share to the same extent as Pierre Krebs a fear that multiculturalism will inevitably lead to a global monoculture, because I suspect that the process of synthesis will be different in different (multicultural) societies, both because of different - similarly as for race - subcultural mixes, and because of different creative contingencies.
Anyhow, as I said, I have barely looked into or studied all of this, so those are just the casual thoughts of a layman.
I've gone back to the email that I sent you just after reading this book (back in January of 2016), and, very curiously, I discovered sentiments very similar to those expressed by iambiguous in this thread with respect to your own musings. Here's what I wrote:
[T]his is a rather abstract work, whereas I think that given its political aims, it requires more of a missing pragmatism: something of a "plan of action" or at least a "statement of practical intentions" or even just a set of tangible goals. Once I saw those, they might very well modify (enhance or degrade) my generally positive sentiments towards this work. For example: is the author advocating for an end to all immigration, in all forms? If so, how does this serve genuine political refugees, or simply people curious to explore life in cultures distinct from their own? Does not the principle of self-determination apply at an individual level too, and does this not imply that, should the host culture welcome that individual, an individual ought to be free to "explore" other cultures by living in them, or even by "switching allegiance" to them? If he is not opposed to all immigration, then what, if any, limitations upon it does he propose? Does he advocate for authoritarian prohibition of interracial procreation? Somehow I don't see him as authoritarian in this sense though, so perhaps he hopes to convince through argumentation rather than to beat offenders into submission?
Make of that congruence what you will!
