How important is cultural homogeneity to a countries stability?

I think this is an important question to ask and it was debated and agreed upon by some of the founding fathers.

Jefferson on culture

"The consequences of foreign education are alarming to me as an American... Cast your eye over America. Who are the men of most learning, of most eloquence, most beloved by their countrymen and most trusted and promoted by them? They are those who have been educated among them and whose manners, morals and habits are perfectly homogeneous with those of the country." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Banister, Jr., Oct. 15, 1785.

"I do not count on any advantage to be derived... from a familiar acquaintance with the principles of [a] government [which has been] rendered... a tyrannical aristocracy, more likely to give ill than good ideas to an American." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Banister, Jr., 1785.

Jefferson even uses the word homogeneous in his statements. Clearly he thought that Americanism and the ideas of freedom were important to the success of the American system.

From these passages, we might conclude that Jefferson feared the "poison" of foreign ideologies, the spirit of monarchy, etc., and that he would not be amenable to a "diversity" that would propagate the principles of other lands and cultures while neglecting a thorough foundation in the principles of republicanism and self-government as the Founders knew it.

Now, this is one point of view.

Global cultural homogenisation

Cultural homogenisation is an aspect of cultural globalisation,[1] listed as one of its main characteristics,[2] and refers to the reduction in cultural diversity[3] through the popularization and diffusion of a wide array of cultural symbols—not only physical objects but customs, ideas and values.[2] O'Connor defines it as "the process by which local cultures are transformed or absorbed by a dominant outside culture"

Cultural homogenization can impact national identity and culture, which would be "eroded by the impact of global cultural industries and multinational media".[

So, I can take from this that by globalizing the world we are essentially eliminating cultural diversity and creating a world culture. Is this good or bad? Is having cultural diversity a good thing or do we only want 1 world dominating culture?

However, while some scholars, critical of this process, stress the dominance of American culture and corporate capitalism in modern cultural homogenization, others note that the process of cultural homogenization is not one-way, and in fact involves a number of cultures exchanging various elements.

Does that mean we are seeing the early stages of evolution into a more worldly and balanced culture? How do we know that the direction we are going in will eventually lead to good?

Tomlinson argues that globalization leads to homogenization.[15] He comments on Cees Hamelink, "Hamelink is right to identify cultural synchronization as an unprecedented feature of global modernity."[15] However, unlike Hamelink, he believes in the idea that homogenization is not a bad thing in itself and that benefits of homogenization may outweigh the goods of cultural diversity.[

Appadurai, acknowledging the concept of homogenization, still provides an alternative argument of indigenization. He says that " the homogenization argument subspeciates into either an argument about Americanization or an argument about commoditization.... What these arguments fail to consider is that at least as rapidly as forces from various metropolises are brought into new societies, they tend to become indigenized."

So, how important is having a unique homogeneous culture?

Do we want unique, individual differences or do we want a global unified culture?

a reply to: toysforadults

It used to be a distinct American value that people could agree to disagree, because after all, it's a free country.

Can't tell you the number of times I heard that over my lifetime. Now, I almost never hear it.

Losing THAT homogeneous value may very well be the beginning of the end for us, imo.

Sad really. Thinking that way was truly special and unique in the world.

a reply to: loam

having the freedom to agree or disagree is a principle that defined our culture though right?

a reply to: toysforadults

I think the spirit of those ideas is that people who wish to live in America and enjoy our freedoms and our way of life should expect to adapt their culture's to fit into American society.

Not expect American society to adapt to their cultures.

America is the world's melting pot, and we welcome people who wish to come here and live by our laws.

Like China? It's been around for quite a while now.

a reply to: toysforadults

I think this is an important question to ask and it was debated and agreed upon by some of the founding fathers.

It is an important question. But I wouldn't expect to much cultural homogeneity when there is such a huge divide between
the populace economically.

Want Peace? Work for Justice....

a reply to: toysforadults

Freedom of association is what we anarchists are after. That way birds of a feather may flock together without interference. A voluntary society is a functional society. Don't want to bake the cake? Don't bake it. Want to drink raw milk? Chug away. Want to make a blacks-only restaurant? Have at it. There are so many cultures and subcultures. Most of us just want to hang together and do what we do and be left alone by everybody else.

Will we ever be allowed to do that?

BWAHHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAA!

No.

a reply to: watchitburn

so you believe that we can have a mix of different cultures and values and still thrive?

isn't the idea of freedom and all that a cultural thing? so what if 5 million imperialist Chinese move here over a 2 year period?

a reply to: olaru12

huge divide between the populace economically.

I really think you nailed it in this post. the massive economic divide right now has our country divided into 3 separate countries living among each other right now

good point

a reply to: Blue Shift

China is also ethnically homogeneous but I avoided that for obvious reasons

a reply to: MisterMcKill

I believe this is the idea behind states rights

We need something to draw us back together, and it does not need to be a war with Russia. The Warmongers want us to hate Russia and that is not good, just because they are different does not mean we need to throw bombs at each other.

We need to stop the irate progressive extreme liberal movement, it is too disruptive.

a reply to: rickymouse

they have a totally different set of values than we do, socialism, bigger government, higher taxes, government solving your problems and not you, equal outcomes

I get the impression that some people think that culture is a fixed thing.
It's nothing of the sort....it continues to grow, develop, adapt and adopt as a reflection of our society as a whole.
That is how it should be.

Of course different cultures can co-exist....as long as one does not want to supplant and supress another.

a reply to: Freeborn

so it depends on the values and the government minding their own business?

a reply to: toysforadults

Depends on the type of government but in an ideal world I'd agree with that....but its not an ideal world.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: rickymouse

they have a totally different set of values than we do, socialism, bigger government, higher taxes, government solving your problems and not you, equal outcomes

What they are trying to do will not work.

When I was a teenager, state income taxes were a little higher, but it did not cost you an arm and a leg to park a car or pay a ticket. The state did not have use taxes on everything, the state was in good shape financially. The roads were in decent shape all over. Now, the use taxes cause lots of grief for people, and we have to pay to do everything. We had skating rinks in three or four areas in our town, the water was free, the electricity the city paid for. Now, water rates are super high, so are sewer rates. The cities used to provide services to their people free of charge. Now if you are going to have some forth of July celebration, it costs four to five hundred bucks just to use the space. If you want to get married at a city park, it is a couple of hundred bucks minimum.

That act of altering the way services were paid was a liberal action of the time. A way of hiding what the government charges for taxes. Do you notice the government tends to lend all sorts of money to communities for things they really do not need, but not for what they really need? That is also a liberal action, give them money for a roundabout they do not need when they need new pavement for streets full of patches on top of patches.

a reply to: rickymouse

them money for a roundabout they do not need when they need new pavement for streets full of patches on top of patches.

how weird is that?

the city I live just filed bankruptcy for a state bailout yet the local college just received a multi million dollar subsidy bigger than the bailout the city was asking for

so I asked a city council member why the city isn't using that money but a non profit, non tax paying college is getting a subsidy literally twice the size of what the city is getting and I asked him to make that make sense to me.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: rickymouse

them money for a roundabout they do not need when they need new pavement for streets full of patches on top of patches.

how weird is that?

the city I live just filed bankruptcy for a state bailout yet the local college just received a multi million dollar subsidy bigger than the bailout the city was asking for

so I asked a city council member why the city isn't using that money but a non profit, non tax paying college is getting a subsidy literally twice the size of what the city is getting and I asked him to make that make sense to me.

I asked someone who worked with funding for the roundabouts why they did not get the streets fixed instead and was told that the State had lots of money for projects that would never happen unless the communities applied but had little money for what cities need. Now the local cities and townships are adding millage to fix their roads because the state will not give them money for what they need, because the money is meant to stimulate the area's economy, repairing streets is not creating new income to the area, it will be done where as the unneeded stuff would never be done. Hard to explain.

a reply to: rickymouse

completely idiotic

how the hell does that happen?