Why should people value their culture and ethnicity?

[Ixtab]

-Is it qualitatively the same as valuing your family--any ethnic group being simply a widely extended family? Is it genetic self-interest? Or is there another reason?
-Or do you take the view that we should not value our culture and heritage--that ethnic pride only elevates one's self-image to counter individual shortcomings?
[I vote 'Genetic self-interest'.]

[jcs]

Much of it is an egoistic extension of the idea of 'self' to the ethnic level, so as to elevate oneself and struggle against one's ethnicity's other. That is, it's a group survival strategy, probably genetically encoded.

[Anarch]

-Is it qualitatively the same as valuing your family--any ethnic group being simply a widely extended family? Is it genetic self-interest? Or is there another reason?
-Or do you take the view that we should not value our culture and heritage--that ethnic pride only elevates one's self-image to counter individual shortcomings?
[I vote 'Genetic self-interest'.]

Qualitatively the same. I would argue that genetic self-interest (the core engine of all self-interest) is what renders family/ethnic group/race important on a subconscious level. The concept of ethnic group is a generalised 'form' (with genetic self-interest being the 'matter') of an historical process which binds a number of agents and enhances their power.

I think I'd like to make an important point on the idea of 'hate'. Genuine hostility exists as a derivative of psychological investment - that something is important in a positive sense of being conducive to self-enhancement and genetic self-interest. 'Hate' as a purely negative event-process - 'I hate niggers, gooks, dune-coons etc.' (witness this in a number of so-called white nationalists) is diseased insofar as it is counter-life - that is, it is life (a productive process) seperated from, and inverted against, the positive, generative principle of being-for-something. Hostility as a derivative from a positive value is not 'hate', but the flip-side of the coin called love.

[daisy]

Why should people value their culture and ethnicity?
albinos are not really into culture. whatever race we wear it is our role to play that part. meaning we have to try to fit into other people's races or ethnicity. we are not entitled to an albino culture or an albino ethnicity.
one reason i mentioned this is because there are a few albinos who could not do it. they could not pretend to be something they were not and they ended up going crazy and killing. a few of them are on death row some of them have already been exterminated with lethal injection. if you are an albino you have to play the part no matter what. do your best to be the race they made you to be. do not flip out and kill them. who knows maybe one day they will give you a best actress/actor award.
_

[Roland]

I believe that I should not value my ethnicity, nor the culture that I was habituated towards because I cannot accurately categorize either. I am personally revolted by those who excessively identify their self with what they call their culture and/or ethnicity. I see it as evidence of underdeveloped mental ability and obvious notions of inferiority. In essence, I am against tribalism and self description in terms of being-for-one-another.

I understand that definition of the self is impossible without the measure of others, however, I believe it to be much healthier for one not to allow this to be the most dominant quality.

Edit: I also do not value my family in terms of primitive, communalistic norms. (such as the American nuclear family). This is categorized as sociopathic; however, I am not generally antisocial. I prefer to develop relationships with others based on my own terms unaffected by perceivable social norms. I do understand that there are controls that exist outside my comprehension, though I do not believe that genetic predisposition inherently guides persons to excessively associate with tribalism.

[jcs]

I believe that I should not value my ethnicity, nor the culture that I was habituated towards because I cannot accurately categorize either. I am personally revolted by those who exessively identify their self with what they call their culture and/or ethnicity. I see it as evidence of underdeveloped mental ability and obvious notions of inferiority. In essence, I am against tribalism and self description in terms of being-for-one-another.
Though I consider your view unhealthy, it isn't unreasonable. The abovementioned egoistic views are basically political. There is something about family that has absolutely nothing to do with politics and survival strategies; maybe it's something that is ultimately due to genes or what-have-you, but it seems higher than base egoism, and consequently has greater depth than shallow selfishness. Love of the family, racial, cultural ideals--selfishness is necessary for all such 'higher' emotions.

[Eisenhans]

-Is it qualitatively the same as valuing your family--any ethnic group being simply a widely extended family? Is it genetic self-interest? Or is there another reason?


Honouring your culture and ethnicity is a vital part of living. By honouring these you are honouring who you are, where you come from, and what you should do based on traditions. I do, however, find it rather foolish to honour more than one culture if your ancestors were whores with every single race on the planet known to man, as these cultures collide and create larger racial impurity upon the earth. But I also do not approve of supporting your culture be you a multiethnic person because of a drug: Mass media run by the Jews. The jews have brainwashed the public into thinking that they are (the biggest load of bullshit ever said) "All created equal." They support-nay-make MANDATORY racial diversity like mixing muds and whites together in schools which leads to attraction, homosexuality, and more mudlettes. Most people think at this point that what I just wrote there was wrong-but it isn't. It is proven (albeit I cannot cite links at this very moment) that races exist. But the jewish media convinces the fools of the world that no-they do not. But the fact of the matter is the opposite. There ARE genetic differences within DNA and body build-up between races. For instance, the black man's skull is far flatter than the white man's skull. This is one of the more obvious proofs of a racial divide.

But why divide races from even living together?

Intolerance.

Let us say for example we place two lions in the same room whom have claimed each a different side-one taking the left and the other taking the right. What happens when the one from the left walks into the right? Violence ensues. The one that wins is the one who has the say as to what happens whenceforth until challeneged again.

Now let us put a "gangster" of negro heritage on one side and a "rocker" of white heritage on the other. What happens? Firstoff, the black will hate the white because he thinks he is better and vica verca. (But if the white man usually says something "racism" is cried and this person is prosecuted). Now what happens when they turn up their music to the same pitch? They both will want to wipe the other's music out-and violence ensues. It is proven that different races cannot co-exist together peacefully.

In conclusion, but honouring your race and attempting to make your bloodline and future bloodlines pure by mating with only those of the same ethnic background of yours and living in only the same locales as that of your kin, then you are preventing the tensions sparked by a mixture of races.

If anyone has any wonder as to what I wrote, I don't know either.

[Lord_Lugdreg]

People should value these things because if they do not they are in effect allowing for an opportunity for their Culture and Ethnicity to be Genocided off the planet (which is what is dangerously close to occuring now with such a small White population and brown hordes growing larger and larger. Hopefully there will be more Tsunamis, Katrinas, and more Ethnic Cleansing to help with this situation in the Future though. Worse is Better for Now)

Also people do not have much of a choice in NOT valueing Culture and Ethnicity because this behavior is actually Hard-Wired into our genetic code.

Genes Contribute to Patriotism and Group Loyalty (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/11/genes_contribute_to_patriotism.php)

[daisy]

Future though. Worse is Better for Now
down is up and black is white

[Crowley]

I am personally revolted by those who excessively identify their self with what they call their culture and/or ethnicity. I see it as evidence of underdeveloped mental ability and obvious notions of inferiority.

I don't understand why you see ethnocentrism as evidence of underdeveloped mental ability. Do you consider Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Europe before the decadence, as examples of underdeveloped mental ability?

[daisy]

let the groups have their ethnic cultural heritage at their own risk
learning their ethnocentrism makes it easier to infiltrate their societies

[Fade the Butcher]

Why do you value your lungs, your heart, or your brain? Your organs are valuable because they enable you to realize your potential and achieve happiness. The same can be said of anything that is valuable and contributes to the good life: family, ethnic kin, civilization, friendships, intelligence, law and order, modern medicine, a sophisticated culture and so on. The practical benefits of such things are obvious. That is why they are pursued.

[Roland]

I don't understand why you see ethnocentrism as evidence of underdeveloped mental ability. Do you consider Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Europe before the decadence, as examples of underdeveloped mental ability?

If I believed that my definition of excessive ethnocentrism could be summed up by simply listing off cultures/races/subspecies and geographical areas in certain historical contexts, than I certainly would not have made that statement.

You wrote that list as if I should ascribe some sort of value to each of the items thus contradicting my own ideas regarding excessive valuation of ones culture, race or ethnicity. Well, I still consider excessive identification of ones self in terms of ethnocentrism as evidence of poor mental capability. If I were to give my own list in the spirit of yours, I would ask: do you consider Black Nationalists, La Raza Chicanos, skinheads, Klansmen etc. as examples of mental naiveté? I do, and I firmly believe that any other group of people who lock themselves within a cell constructed of vague interpretations of cultural tradition and perceived genetic oneness are hopelessly handicapped in terms of mental ability.

While I rarely participate by defining my self in terms of my ethnicity and/or cultural heritage, I do not devalue anyone who loves and supports their culture and race. However, I see no reason for it to be a concept to seize upon in order to form a Weltanschauung. I was raised to embrace a certain culture, but I don't feel a natural, tribal attraction to whites any more than I do towards Africans. I do not feel as though my life requires a tribe.

I cannot see how, for instance, an auto-didact white/black nationalist in his twenties could possibly represent anything else to me than ignorance, or some other form of self-imposed cognitive closure. I cannot see the greatness of western culture as evidence that I, contrary to all reason, intuition, impulse and emotion, should rabidly embrace all persons of my exact European genetic stock. These people are strewn about the world, dissociated from me by the movements of time. Perhaps twenty-four hundred years ago I would have felt a love for my fellow Macedonian as I toiled away in my predetermined lifestyle of subsistence farming. However, now I exist in an essentially global world where my personal development and survival is not inexorably bound to my racial lineage. I think it is an example of ignorance to assume that this globalised world is a result of the artificial triumph of Jewish will and not simply the determined motions of the natural world. While I am not interested in laying out a complete historical system, I can say, with certainty, that the greatness of various historical epochs in various geographical regions of the world, cannot be described in terms of the level that individuals self-identified with their race. Ethnocentrism may have been a quality of Europe “before the decadence”, but it certainly wasn't the sole cause of many of its great achievements that I now take for granted.

In summation, I find persons who slavishly adhere to a racial and cultural definition (a definition which often times is more personal than objectively real) to be incapable of personal self-improvement. The exclusionary aspects of ethnocentrism restrain the development of the self. This is mental closure.

If hordes of multicultural mongrels destroy my technology, health-care, and cultural infrastructure, I will remain content with what I have personally experienced and achieved. I will probably blame ethnocentrism, not some pluralistic, multicultural prerogative established by groups of ignorant bleeding hearts.

[Péter]

Why should people value their culture and ethnicity?

Since you used the word "should", it seems you are asking for a subjective response. For this reason I'll leave genetics out of my answer.

The family is the means of cultural transmission. A proper upbringing will leave one loving the richness of their ethno-culture, as it what makes "races" (meaning ethnic groups) unique.

Culture is the cornerstone of civilizations, as it is the propagator of spirit. Spirit is that which transends the temporal. The longevity of any civilization can be approximated from the condition of its spirit; ergo we can deduce that the richness of a culture is a qualitative indicator of a civilization's general health.

[Fade the Butcher]

The glorification of the individual in our society strikes me as the grossly irrational byproduct of the bourgeoisie mind. The individual, in reality, achieves relatively nothing as the result of his own efforts. Even his own thoughts are rarely his own. He simply mindlessly repeats and reflects upon slogans, catch phrases, concepts, and paradigms he has drawn from other sources. The individual is immersed in a social and historical context that structures virtually every aspect of life, from his standard of living to his own thought processes.

The individualist denigrates community and tradition but draws from the resources of both. The countless generations that have come and gone before him (and those who will come after) are a mere afterthought. These are the people, however, who have erected the foundation on which he now stands to crow and exaggerate his own self-importance. The words that stream out of his mouth were taught to him by others who put them there in the first place. The concepts that color his imagination are liberally drawn from the writings of others. The food he eats for dinner was grown by faceless strangers. The state that protects him from violence is an irrelevancy; it's history an antiquarian curiosity. The family that nurtures him is a dispensable voluntary association. The medicine that cures his ills is something that just happens to be there for him to consume.

The words of Newton are meaningless to the individualist: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Such humility is foreign to him, a despicable creature driven by arrogance and narcissism, whose parasitic existence and absurd ideology is detrimental to the survival and progress of higher civilization. The asocial individualist is a hypocrite who doesn't have the courage of his own convictions. He rebels against society yet partakes in its fruits. He advocates isolation, autonomy, and rights but immerses himself in the social state. He denies that community and tradition are goods while consuming their benefits.

Liberalism is individualism fashioned into an all encompassing ideology. As with all fantasy ideologies, liberalism begins by positing a 'state of nature' that never existed. In this hypothetical fantasy world, the individual is happy and free and isolated until he contracts with other individuals to establish a government in order to collect its benefits. The community is nothing more than a voluntary cooperative of individuals who freely associate to pursue their own private ends. That's a nice theory but reality is quite different. In truth, the individual is almost always born into communities and traditions that already exist and brought up in their customs. He is imparted language, concepts, and morals which he uses to make sense of his surroundings.

Why is culture, community, and tradition valuable to the individual? Why should such things be evaluated positively? Because these are external goods that are essential to the individual if he is rise above a brute substinence level of existence and realize his potential. Such forms of association are not in need of justification. They justify themselves through the realization of the enormous benefits bestowed upon us. The practice of medicine exists because health is preferable to sickness. The institution of government exists because order is preferable to chaos. Tradition facilitates the transmission of both from generation to generation. We value health and order because both are necessary if we are to flourish and achieve happiness. And happiness can only be realized in a collective state.

[Blaphbee]

Great post Fade.

[Roland]

The glorification of the individual in our society strikes me as the grossly irrational byproduct of the bourgeoisie mind. The individual, in reality, achieves relatively nothing as the result of his own efforts. Even his own thoughts are rarely his own. He simply mindlessly repeats and reflects upon slogans, catch phrases, concepts, and paradigms he has drawn from other sources. The individual is immersed in a social and historical context that structures virtually every aspect of life, from his standard of living to his own thought processes.

The individualist denigrates community and tradition but draws from the resources of both. The countless generations that have come and gone before him (and those who will come after) are a mere afterthought. These are the people, however, who have erected the foundation on which he now stands to crow and exaggerate his own self-importance. The words that stream out of his mouth were taught to him by others who put them there in the first place. The concepts that color his imagination are liberally drawn from the writings of others. The food he eats for dinner was grown by faceless strangers. The state that protects him from violence is an irrelevancy; it's history an antiquarian curiosity. The family that nurtures him is a dispensable voluntary association. The medicine that cures his ills is something that just happens to be there for him to consume.

The words of Newton are meaningless to the individualist: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Such humility is foreign to him, a despicable creature driven by arrogance and narcissism, whose parasitic existence and absurd ideology is detrimental to the survival and progress of higher civilization. The asocial individualist is a hypocrite who doesn't have the courage of his own convictions. He rebels against society yet partakes in its fruits. He advocates isolation, autonomy, and rights but immerses himself in the social state. He denies that community and tradition are goods while consuming their benefits.

Liberalism is individualism fashioned into an all encompassing ideology. As with all fantasy ideologies, liberalism begins by positing a 'state of nature' that never existed. In this hypothetical fantasy world, the individual is happy and free and isolated until he contracts with other individuals to establish a government in order to collect its benefits. The community is nothing more than a voluntary cooperative of individuals who freely associate to pursue their own private ends. That's a nice theory but reality is quite different. In truth, the individual is almost always born into communities and traditions that already exist and brought up in their customs. He is imparted language, concepts, and morals which he uses to make sense of his surroundings.

Why is culture, community, and tradition valuable to the individual? Why should such things be evaluated positively? Because these are external goods that are essential to the individual if he is rise above a brute substinence level of existence and realize his potential. Such forms of association are not in need of justification. They justify themselves through the realization of the enormous benefits bestowed upon us. The practice of medicine exists because health is preferable to sickness. The institution of government exists because order is preferable to chaos. Tradition facilitates the transmission of both from generation to generation. We value health and order because both are necessary if we are to flourish and achieve happiness. And happiness can only be realized in a collective state.

A good definition of the individual, though I would object that liberalism and individualism are synonymous. Certainly there are other forms of individualism.

I personally understand the futility of thinking of an autonomous individual free from outside influence; however, pragmatically, there appears to be a “one” in my consciousness that comes into being when I come into contact with other beings. In this “one” values are formed based on yet more enigmatic forces than simply family. I have come to not value modern civilization in such a way that I believe that my ethnicity in any way represents a Good. It is precisely because I do not believe in a state of nature that I reject the notion that in order for me to flourish, I must retire to a communalistic ideology. Thus, the proper, objective, natural Good (ethnocentrism), seems as foreign to me as the behavior I would supposedly exposit in a liberal state of nature.

I do desire the absence of illness; however, I fail to see the connection between ethnocentrism and the maintenance of a medical system.

[infoterror]

-Is it qualitatively the same as valuing your family--any ethnic group being simply a widely extended family? Is it genetic self-interest? Or is there another reason?
-Or do you take the view that we should not value our culture and heritage--that ethnic pride only elevates one's self-image to counter individual shortcomings?
[I vote 'Genetic self-interest'.]

Real reason is to have an inherent value system higher than money.

The rest is Jewish babble.

[Sandee]

The glorification of the individual in our society strikes me as the grossly irrational byproduct of the bourgeoisie mind. The individual, in reality, achieves relatively nothing as the result of his own efforts. Even his own thoughts are rarely his own. He simply mindlessly repeats and reflects upon slogans, catch phrases, concepts, and paradigms he has drawn from other sources. The individual is immersed in a social and historical context that structures virtually every aspect of life, from his standard of living to his own thought processes.

I agree that there is no such thing as complete freedom of thoughts and actions. From the moment we were born and throughout our lives, our thoughts are shaped by our environment which then result in us acting a certain way.

The issue here is self-worth.

The reason why communities are falling apart is precisely because they overlook the contributions of individuals (in modern times) who do their best to sustain the community in question. Why the constant focus on what our past ancestors did? Sure, one should recognize merit where merit is due but if our ancestors set the standards and their descendants don't set similar praiseworthy standards, no wonder communities are slowly losing their adherents. The succeeding contributions of recent adherents being taken for granted is to be blamed for the lack of cohesion within a collective.

Questions to ask oneself:

Don't contributing individuals within a community need a little bit of recognition for their personal efforts? (Nowadays, people take things for granted. My ancestors did this. My ancestors did that.)

How about:

1. What are *YOU* doing for the community?

2. Are the efforts of contributing individuals being valued and recognized within the community?

3. What personal needs and interests of adherents aren't being met by the community?

Those are the questions that need to be answered.

People not finding their worth within the community normally go seek recognition elsewhere or think they can on their own.

If communities were to acknowledge that modern individuals strive for recognition of their OWN contributions (not that of a distant ancestor) and take measures on how to serve both the individual interests and that of the community at large (common good), communities wouldn't face the problems they do today.

For a community to stand the course of time, the community should acknowlegde that the needs and interests of individuals have changed and it's because those needs aren't being satisfied that members of a collective tend to look for 'better avenues'. It's the dissatisfaction with the collective that leads to rebellion towards the authority.

The individualist denigrates community and tradition but draws from the resources of both. The countless generations that have come and gone before him (and those who will come after) are a mere afterthought. These are the people, however, who have erected the foundation on which he now stands to crow and exaggerate his own self-importance. The words that stream out of his mouth were taught to him by others who put them there in the first place. The concepts that color his imagination are liberally drawn from the writings of others. The food he eats for dinner was grown by faceless strangers. The state that protects him from violence is an irrelevancy; it's history an antiquarian curiosity. The family that nurtures him is a dispensable voluntary association. The medicine that cures his ills is something that just happens to be there for him to consume.

It all comes down to the inability to self-express and the lack of recognition within the community. Our ancestors lived in a different time period and yet, they themselves witnessed and brought about a lot of revolutions while seeing to it that their communities evolved for the better. They set standards one after the other. When a collective stagnates and worse holds onto past ideals that are impossible to uphold in modern times, they collapse.


The words of Newton are meaningless to the individualist: "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Such humility is foreign to him, a despicable creature driven by arrogance and narcissism, whose parasitic existence and absurd ideology is detrimental to the survival and progress of higher civilization. The asocial individualist is a hypocrite who doesn't have the courage of his own convictions. He rebels against society yet partakes in its fruits. He advocates isolation, autonomy, and rights but immerses himself in the social state. He denies that community and tradition are goods while consuming their benefits.

Ditto.

Our ancestors set the foundation but their descendants should add on to that foundation and not stagnate.

I agree that an individual doesn't always know what lies in his/her best interests but overlooking their needs and interests doesn't help either. What should be a concern is the lack of good role models in present times.

The individualist you describe here is rebelling against? Past corrupted authorities.

When there is no trust within a community, what else can you expect? Surely, one can cannot deny that within communities themselves certain leaders have abused their power and authority.

One should realize that just as some customs and traditions within a community are good, some are limiting and do not help the community evolve. When those are overlooked, it results in what we are witnessing today: the break-up of whole communities.


Liberalism is individualism fashioned into an all encompassing ideology. As with all fantasy ideologies, liberalism begins by positing a 'state of nature' that never existed. In this hypothetical fantasy world, the individual is happy and free and isolated until he contracts with other individuals to establish a government in order to collect its benefits. The community is nothing more than a voluntary cooperative of individuals who freely associate to pursue their own private ends. That's a nice theory but reality is quite different. In truth, the individual is almost always born into communities and traditions that already exist and brought up in their customs. He is imparted language, concepts, and morals which he uses to make sense of his surroundings.


I do not consider myself liberal. Quite the contrary, I pretty tend towards conservative and yet, I believe that the reason individuals do not submit to the authority of a community is due to the unwillingness of that community to recognize that there might be certain problems or corruption within the community as well.

Why are communities failing? It's their inability to cope and deal with:

1. the modern social pressures that the adherents face

and

2. the rapidly changing needs of the individual in present times.


Why is culture, community, and tradition valuable to the individual? Why should such things be evaluated positively? Because these are external goods that are essential to the individual if he is rise above a brute substinence level of existence and realize his potential. Such forms of association are not in need of justification. They justify themselves through the realization of the enormous benefits bestowed upon us. The practice of medicine exists because health is preferable to sickness. The institution of government exists because order is preferable to chaos. Tradition facilitates the transmission of both from generation to generation. We value health and order because both are necessary if we are to flourish and achieve happiness. And happiness can only be realized in a collective state.

True. I have to add though that unless the collective recognizes the needs of all its followers and not just those that are in authority, will it be able to make sure that its adherents do not stray away.

[Jonathan]

First of all it's great to see Roland and sandee making these arguements on the Phora.

The reason why communities are falling apart is precisely because they overlook the contributions of individuals (in modern times) who do their best to sustain the community in question.
I'd disagree with this. In my experience those "individuals who contribute" are the least concious of their "individual" desires and are the most concious of "social cohesion". The reason that "communities are falling apart" is because more and more people are less interested with the development of the community and more interested in their own personal development/gain i.e. the Individualists(eh, for lack of a better term).

Why the constant focus on what our past ancestors did?
I disagree with people who have a fettish for ancestor worship, and I think this can lead to stagnation of the community at worst, but it is this conciousness of the link with our ancestors and their community(which is also our community) that cements the communal bond.

The succeeding contributions of recent adherents being taken for granted is to be blamed for the lack of cohesion within a collective.
Lack of cohesion within the collective? Would you not consider this "lack of cohesion" to be "the break down of the collective" which is driven by "individualism".

Don't contributing individuals within a community need a little bit of recognition for their personal efforts?
Going down this road may lead to individuals within a community, providing for the community, just for the sake of the returns they get. Contribution to the community should come from a genuine will to see the collective prospore, not because you expect people to thank you for it(not that that's necessarily what you're implying).

Are the efforts of contributing individuals being valued and recognized within the community?
I dislike the way you break down the collective into "contributing individuals"(which implies that there are other types of individuals within the community). These people are not "individuals" in the way you seem to imply. They are selfless members of the collective/community.

What personal needs and interests of adherents aren't being met by the community?
Here you go again, you are emphasising the "personal" needs over the "general good". I suppose you think these are necessarily different?

People not finding their worth within the community normally go seek recognition elsewhere or think they can on their own.
The kind of people you seem to be describing, who are "finding their worth", are already corrupted by individualism if they are inclined to "find what they can get from the collective".

If communities were to acknowledge that modern individuals strive for recognition of their OWN contributions
But why is this? Why do "individuals" within communities strive for recognition of their "OWN" contributions? Such people should take pride in the furthering of the "common cause" rather than their "individual" achievements.

(not that of a distant ancestor) and take measures on how to serve both the individual interests and that of the community at large (common good), communities wouldn't face the problems they do today.
What are the differences between "individual interests" and "the common good" IYO?

For a community to stand the course of time, the community should acknowlegde that the needs and interests of individuals have changed
What brought about this change IYO?

It all comes down to the inability to self-express and the lack of recognition within the community.
1)When did "self-expression" become so important? Once upon a time they said everyone just wanted to "fit in".

2)One's will for recognition within the community only comes about when one begins to identify one's self as an individual apart from the community i.e. The rot has already set in, not the other way around.

Our ancestors lived in a different time period and yet, they themselves witnessed and brought about a lot of revolutions while seeing to it that their communities evolved for the better.
Before rampant individualism IMO.

When a collective stagnates and worse holds onto past ideals that are impossible to uphold in modern times, they collapse.
What past ideals and why are they impossible to uphold?

What should be a concern is the lack of good role models in present times.
What brought about this lack of role models IYO?

The individualist you describe here is rebelling against? Past corrupted authorities.
The individual isn't necessarily "rebelling". He/She is following his/her own interests.

Surely, one can cannot deny that within communities themselves certain leaders have abused their power and authority.
Interesting that you say "certain leaders" rather than "certain individuals". It is the "individual" in his/her quest for individual gratification at the expence of the community who "abuses their power and authority". Individualism treats everyone as "the leader" - that's the problem.

One should realize that just as some customs and traditions within a community are good, some are limiting and do not help the community evolve. When those are overlooked, it results in what we are witnessing today: the break-up of whole communities.
I would maintain that it is a shift in values which has seen the rise in new (unnecessary) ideal that has caused individualism and the collapse of communities.

the rapidly changing needs of the individual in present times.
Communities have survived for thousands of years until the rise of these noew "needs". How is it that past communities had no need for these "needs" ?

[Sandee]

First of all it's great to see Roland and sandee making these arguements on the Phora.

:) A good thing you joined in.

I quoted my previous replies to Fade (where you quoted me) and your replies as well so it's easier to follow.


The reason why communities are falling apart is precisely because they overlook the contributions of individuals (in modern times) who do their best to sustain the community in question.
I'd disagree with this. In my experience those "individuals who contribute" are the least concious of their "individual" desires and are the most concious of "social cohesion". The reason that "communities are falling apart" is because more and more people are less interested with the development of the community and more interested in their own personal development/gain i.e. the Individualists(eh, for lack of a better term).

Does pursuing one's self-interests automatically equate to a lack of interest in the community? If I can prosper myself, does it necessarily mean that I can't or won't contribute to the community at large? If the community itself provides me with the possibility to for self-advancement, why wouldn't I support the community to make sure it can continue to provide for me and others?

A person who can help himself/herself is able to help others as well.

How many suppress their individual desires in modern times? But most importantly, how can one save a community and make sure its adherents can find what they desire within and thus not start looking without?


Why the constant focus on what our past ancestors did?
I disagree with people who have a fettish for ancestor worship, and I think this can lead to stagnation of the community at worst, but it is this conciousness of the link with our ancestors and their community(which is also our community) that cements the communal bond.

Weren't the ancestors (many who could be considered elites) themselves individuals that strived to make a difference? They perfected themselves so as to be able to lead the others and ensure the progress of their communities.


The succeeding contributions of recent adherents being taken for granted is to be blamed for the lack of cohesion within a collective.
Lack of cohesion within the collective? Would you not consider this "lack of cohesion" to be "the break down of the collective" which is driven by "individualism".

But when the individual's needs are met by that collective, wouldn't it be okay to presume that the individual would adhere to the community?

What is wrong with an individual striving to meet her/his personal needs while at the same time supporting the community? Is it a question of either this or that? Does one really need to do away with one's individual interests for the sake of the community? Why can't one serve both one's interests and that of the community too?


Don't contributing individuals within a community need a little bit of recognition for their personal efforts?
Going down this road may lead to individuals within a community, providing for the community, just for the sake of the returns they get. Contribution to the community should come from a genuine will to see the collective prospore, not because you expect people to thank you for it(not that that's necessarily what you're implying).

What is more important in the long run? Preserving that community or looking for an ideal where most, if not all, of the adherents are selfless? No I didn't mean that contributors absolutely needed to be praised constantly but I was merely pointing out how they should be allowed to emancipate within the community.


Are the efforts of contributing individuals being valued and recognized within the community?
I dislike the way you break down the collective into "contributing individuals"(which implies that there are other types of individuals within the community). These people are not "individuals" in the way you seem to imply. They are selfless members of the collective/community.

Every single member of a community contributes in some way and the best he/she can. Appreciation and pride in one's own efforts can go hand in hand with support and adhesion to the community.


What personal needs and interests of adherents aren't being met by the community?
Here you go again, you are emphasising the "personal" needs over the "general good". I suppose you think these are necessarily different?

No. But I believe that it's a two way thing. It can be likened to a symbiotic relationship. Individuals support the community and when supported in return they are able to strive within that community.


People not finding their worth within the community normally go seek recognition elsewhere or think they can on their own.
The kind of people you seem to be describing, who are "finding their worth", are already corrupted by individualism if they are inclined to "find what they can get from the collective".

But a community is made up of individuals that even though they strive for the common good and contribute as much as they can, have their personal needs too. What is wrong in the 'give and take' mentality? Or if you prefer sharing.


If communities were to acknowledge that modern individuals strive for recognition of their OWN contributions
But why is this? Why do "individuals" within communities strive for recognition of their "OWN" contributions? Such people should take pride in the furthering of the "common cause" rather than their "individual" achievements.

Why not both? I didn't mean it to be necessarily taken as: 'It's all about me, me and me!'

Re: Individual achievements and common cause

Those two aren't mutually exclusive, are they? Can't an individual be proud of his/her efforts and yet also take pride in his/her heritage and in perpetuating the 'common cause' as you say?


(not that of a distant ancestor) and take measures on how to serve both the individual interests and that of the community at large (common good), communities wouldn't face the problems they do today.
What are the differences between "individual interests" and "the common good" IYO?

My point is that BOTH can be met at the same time, without the need to sacrifice one for the other. Why can't one perpetuate both at the same time?


For a community to stand the course of time, the community should acknowlegde that the needs and interests of individuals have changed
What brought about this change IYO?

Why is change necessarily portrayed as a bad thing? It's how that change is implemented that counts. The self seeks advancement but it need not be at the expense of the community. It can also be for the good of that community.


It all comes down to the inability to self-express and the lack of recognition within the community.
1)When did "sel-expression" become so important? Once upon a time they said everyone just wanted to "fit in".

2)One's will for recognition within the community only comes about when one begins to identify one's self as an individual apart from the community i.e. They rot has already set in, not the other way around.

What is wrong with self-expression within a community if it can be used for a good cause? There are two sides to self-expression. One that's negative and doesn't benefit the community and one that can be beneficial. Who says that just because I am able to express myself that I can't get along with the other members of my community and help my community at the same time? There is a difference. Self-expression can have a positive or a negative effect on the community. The focus should be on how to bring out the best in every individual and tone down the worst.


Our ancestors lived in a different time period and yet, they themselves witnessed and brought about a lot of revolutions while seeing to it that their communities evolved for the better.
Before rampant individualism IMO.

Let's say that the individual that progresses with the help of the community and also through self-interest can either support the community or because of greed, betray his/her community.

In modern times, the aim should be to strengthen the bonds between the members and to support the community from within by making sure that the adherents personally feel that preserving the community is for their own good.


When a collective stagnates and worse holds onto past ideals that are impossible to uphold in modern times, they collapse.
What past ideals and why are they impossible to uphold?

As individuals evolve, communities evolve too. Some practices get replaced or modified. What worked in the past may be limiting in the present. The goal of a community is to ensure that its members remain faithful to the community while it advances.


What should be a concern is the lack of good role models in present times.
What brought about this lack of role models IYO?

Those that follow in the footsteps of their ancestors but better yet, those that go further than what their ancestors achieved and thus set higher standards are the role models that the community is lacking. Why? Because of lack of trust in one's abilities in not only asserting them but using them for the community's good.


The individualist you describe here is rebelling against? Past corrupted authorities.
The individual isn't necessarily "rebelling". He/She is following his/her own interests.

What led the individual to develop outside interests? Dissatisfaction and if so, Why?

Good question. What leads an individual to be dissatisfied with his/her community when all is provided for? Obviously the individual feels a lack and hence tries to compensate by turning to outside interests. If the community sees to it that its adherents' needs are met, there would be no reason to feel dissatisfied with the community, right?


Surely, one can cannot deny that within communities themselves certain leaders have abused their power and authority.
Interesting that you say "certain leaders" rather than "certain individuals". It is the "individual" in his/her quest for individual gratification at the expence of the community who "abuses their power and authority".

Yeah but what would be best would be individuals that not only strive for the common cause but also lead the others and can make a difference in the community.


One should realize that just as some customs and traditions within a community are good, some are limiting and do not help the community evolve. When those are overlooked, it results in what we are witnessing today: the break-up of whole communities.
I would maintain that it is a shift in values which has seen the rise in new (unnecessary) ideal that has caused individualism and the collapse of communities.

Values, traditions and morals are important and should be maintained. I agree. One can still however follow one's interests within reasonable bounds while contributing to the community at large.


the rapidly changing needs of the individual in present times.
Communities have survived for thousands of years until the rise of these noew "needs". How is it that past communities had no need for these "needs" ?

Past communities evolved too. They didn't stagnate. They went through a lot of changes. There is a need for advancement that is felt by one and all. The individuals strive for it and the community as a whole can benefit.

I personally believe that it's an internal problem (within the community). Note that blaming the individual just make them alienate themselves further.

Also, overlooking their needs will lead to adherents feeling frustrated. So, why not cater to their individual needs while at the same time instilling in them a strong sense of community adhesion and the notion of working for the common cause?

[Helios Panoptes]

the rapidly changing needs of the individual in present times.

Communities have survived for thousands of years until the rise of these noew "needs". How is it that past communities had no need for these "needs" ?

Past communities evolved too. They didn't stagnate. They went through a lot of changes. There is a need for advancement that is felt by one and all.

That is not the answer this question demands. What in particular is fundamentally different about modern man that necessitates different "needs"? Everyone realizes quite well that "things change over time," by why a specific change must occur requires a better analysis than a mere platitude.

[Jonathan]

Before I nose-dive into this, could you briefly describe your ideology (just so I can get a bit of perspective)? I’ll do likewise if you wish. Looks like you’re an individualist with a certain sense of duty to others. You also maintained that you were a conservative in one post.

:) A good thing you joined in.
A pleasure.

I quoted my previous replies to Fade (where you quoted me) and your replies as well so it's easier to follow.
Thanks. I’ve never done it before, but if you want me to, I will.

Does pursuing one's self-interests automatically equate to a lack of interest in the community?
It depends on what “one’s self-interests” are (we will get on to this latter).

If the community itself provides me with the possibility to for self-advancement, why wouldn't I support the community to make sure it can continue to provide for me and others?
Because, for example, you may think that you can survive and/or prosper independently of the community. Hard-line individualists actively promote this mode of thinking.

How many suppress their individual desires in modern times?
Very few in the western world. The kind of consumerism promoted teaches to give in to one’s desires(individualism, consumerism) as opposed to fortitude. Ironically, this “individualism” is actually a cover for the kind of “individual conformity” which is promoted – “You[anyone/[B]everyone[/B]] must go to MacDonald’s…because YOU[anyone/[B]everyone[/B]] want to”, for example.

[QUOTE=sandee] But most importantly, how can one save a community and make sure its adherents can find what they desire within and thus not start looking without? [/QUOTE]
By promoting “the common good” over “individual needs” and instilling a sense of duty and altruism. How to do that? I’m not sure (if I was, I wouldn’t be posting on the internet!).

[QUOTE=sandee] Weren't the ancestors (many who could be considered elites) themselves individuals that strived to make a difference? They perfected themselves so as to be able to lead the others and ensure the progress of their communities. [/QUOTE]
You’re already dividing up the collective into “those who perfect themselves and lead” and “the others”. The ancestors weren’t necessarily “individuals that strived to make a difference” but “members of the collective that strived to make a difference”. It’s a different concept. One sees “themselves in the collective”, the other sees “the collective”.

[QUOTE=sandee]What is wrong with an individual striving to meet her/his personal needs while at the same time supporting the community? [/QUOTE]
You are implying that the personal needs are necessarily different from that of the collective(later on you say “it is a two way thing”). This is not necessarily the case though, communities survived for thousands of years before being broken down because they didn’t meet new “personal needs”, where were these needs for the previous thousands of year? And what brought them about?

[QUOTE=sandee] Is it a question of either this or that? [/QUOTE]
You seem to be implying so with the statement above.

[QUOTE=sandee] Does one really need to do away with one's individual interests for the sake of the community? [/QUOTE]
But what are these individual interests that are incompatible with the community? They weren’t always around.

[QUOTE=sandee] Why can't one serve both one's interests and that of the community too? [/QUOTE]
One can – such was the case for thousands of years. Only lately have the communities been falling apart under the demands for these “personal interests”.

[QUOTE=sandee] What is more important in the long run? Preserving that community or looking for an ideal where most, if not all, of the adherents are selfless? [/QUOTE]
The “common good” i.e. “Preserving that community”

[QUOTE=sandee] No I didn't mean that contributors absolutely needed to be praised constantly but I was merely pointing out how they should be allowed to emancipate within the community. [/QUOTE]
That’s why I qualified my remark with the statement in brackets J

[QUOTE=sandee]Every single member of a community contributes in some way and the best he/she can. [/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Some people are [closet]Free-riders.

[QUOTE=sandee] Appreciation and pride in one's own efforts can go hand in hand with support and adhesion to the community. [/QUOTE]
I agree. Such was the case for thousands of years.

[QUOTE=sandee] No. [/QUOTE]
Really? But they way you say [I]Why can't one serve both [I]one's interests and[/I] that of the community too?[/I] seems to imply that one is different from the other.

IMO there are certain [unnecessary] “personal interests” which go against the grain of the community. But these are not “needs”.

[QUOTE=sandee] It can be likened to a symbiotic relationship. Individuals support the community and when supported in return they are able to strive within that community. [/QUOTE]
But an Individual is one who sees themselves in terms of “me and the others” as opposed to a “member of the collective” who sees “we the collective”.

Substitute the word “Individuals” in the statement above with “Members of the community/collective” and you’ve got [I]my[/I] argument in a nut shell.

[QUOTE=sandee] But a community is made up of individuals that even though they strive for the common good and contribute as much as they can, have their personal needs too. [/QUOTE]
What are these personal needs which go against the grain of the community? On the one hand you say “it is a two way thing” then you say there are “personal needs” despite the “common good”.

[QUOTE=sandee] What is wrong in the 'give and take' mentality? Or if you prefer sharing. [/QUOTE]
Nothing. But we’re not talking about “sharing”. We’re talking about the break down of communities due to individualism and so-called “personal needs” which cannot be met by the community.

[QUOTE=sandee] Why not both? [/QUOTE]
Because a focus on "individual" achievements leads to a collapse of the community.

[QUOTE=sandee] Can't an individual be proud of his/her efforts and yet also take pride in his/her heritage and in perpetuating the 'common cause' as you say? [/QUOTE]
They can, until this happens at the expense of the collective. It’s a matter of drawing a line perhaps.

[QUOTE=sandee] My point is that BOTH can be met at the same time, without the need to sacrifice one for the other. [/QUOTE]
If so, then why did you say communities collapse because they can’t achieve so-called “personal needs”.

[QUOTE=sandee] Why can't one perpetuate both at the same time? [/QUOTE]
They can, and this was the case for thousands of years, before new so-called “personal needs”.

[QUOTE=sandee] Why is change necessarily portrayed as a bad thing? [/QUOTE]
It isn’t. Communities often need to develop.

You haven’t answered the original question though:
[QUOTE=sandee] For a community to stand the course of time, the community should acknowlegde that the needs and interests of individuals have changed [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Shane]What brought about this change IYO? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=sandee] What is wrong with self-expression within a community if it can be used for a good cause? [/QUOTE]

You have not answered the question:
[QUOTE=Shane] 1)When did "self-expression" become so important? Once upon a time they said everyone just wanted to "fit in". [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=sandee] In modern times, the aim should be to strengthen the bonds between the members and to support the community from within by making sure that the adherents personally feel that preserving the community is for their own good. [/QUOTE]
They should “collectively” feel that the community is for the “common good”.

[QUOTE=sandee] As individuals evolve, communities evolve too. Some practices get replaced or modified. What worked in the past may be limiting in the present. The goal of a community is to ensure that its members remain faithful to the community while it advances. [/QUOTE]

You have not answered the question:
[QUOTE=Shane] What past ideals and why are they impossible to uphold?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=sandee] Why? Because of lack of trust in one's abilities in not only asserting them but using them for the community's good. [/QUOTE]
I’ve lost you hereL What brought about the lack of role models IYO?

[QUOTE=sandee]Good question. What leads an individual to be dissatisfied with his/her community when all is provided for? [/QUOTE]
*ahem* Yes, that is what I asked you. What is your answer?

[QUOTE=sandee]Obviously the individual feels a lack and hence tries to compensate by turning to outside interests. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=sandee] If the community sees to it that its adherents' needs are met, there would be no reason to feel dissatisfied with the community, right? [/QUOTE]
Yes, and such was the case for thousands of years. Only recently with the rise of new so-called “needs” has the community failed to meet it’s member’s needs. I maintain that these are unnecessary/fake “needs”.

[QUOTE=sandee]Yeah but what would be best would be individuals that not only strive for the common cause but also lead the others and can make a difference in the community. [/QUOTE]
I’m very sceptical about any sort of “leader class” within a society. They tend to act in their own interests at the expense of the majority.

[QUOTE=sandee] One can still however follow one's interests within reasonable bounds while contributing to the community at large. [/QUOTE]
This is the crux of the issue. Where does one draw the line?

[QUOTE=sandee] I personally believe that it's an internal problem (within the community). [/QUOTE]
What brought about this problem? It didn’t exist until recent times.

Or:
[QUOTE=Vlad Tepes] That is not the answer this question demands. What in particular is fundamentally different about modern man that necessitates different "needs"? Everyone realizes quite well that "things change over time," but why a specific change [B]must[/B] occur requires a better analysis than a mere platitude. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=sandee] So, why not cater to their individual needs while at the same time instilling in them a strong sense of community adhesion and the notion of working for the common cause? [/QUOTE]
Because the community cannot meet these new faux “needs”.

[Fade the Butcher]

I didn't notice your response in this thread. I will reply later today.

[Fade the Butcher]

I agree that there is no such thing as complete freedom of thoughts and actions. From the moment we were born and throughout our lives, our thoughts are shaped by our environment which then result in us acting a certain way.

I would go further than that. Humans are social beings and thought is a social process. Individuals are unable to develop their higher cognitive capacities when isolated from the collective. They can be counted as lucky if they even manage to survive. Collectives are self sufficient. Individuals are not. They cannot reproduce themselves in isolation. The individual must be understood as a part in relation to a whole, not as an island unto himself. The collective has primacy.

The issue here is self-worth.

The issue here is why any given individual should value his culture or ethnicity.

The reason why communities are falling apart is precisely because they overlook the contributions of individuals (in modern times) who do their best to sustain the community in question.

Individualism is the reason why communities are falling apart. This mentality can also be blamed for the decline of the family and the rise in miscegenation.

Why the constant focus on what our past ancestors did?

I focus on the past and the future, not the present, as the present lasts only for a moment. The past and the future stretch forward and backward to eternity. The present is only explicable as a culmination of historical trends.


Sure, one should recognize merit where merit is due but if our ancestors set the standards and their descendants don't set similar praiseworthy standards, no wonder communities are slowly losing their adherents.

I personally don't believe our contemporaries are worthy of praise.

The succeeding contributions of recent adherents being taken for granted is to be blamed for the lack of cohesion within a collective.

Communities are losing their cohesion because of hyper individualism.

Don't contributing individuals within a community need a little bit of recognition for their personal efforts?

These contributions are never separate from their social and historical context.

(Nowadays, people take things for granted. My ancestors did this. My ancestors did that.)

This is individualism in action.

1. What are *YOU* doing for the community?

I don't live in a community. I live in a liberal state. It would make little sense for me to contribute to a form of association that I despise; that despises people like me in turn.

2. Are the efforts of contributing individuals being valued and recognized within the community?

The community is seen today as nothing more than a voluntary association of free individuals who contract with each other to pursue their own individual ends.

3. What personal needs and interests of adherents aren't being met by the community?

There is a big emphasis upon individual self-expression today that wasn't around a few generations ago.

People not finding their worth within the community normally go seek recognition elsewhere or think they can on their own.

This is already individualism.

If communities were to acknowledge that modern individuals strive for recognition of their OWN contributions (not that of a distant ancestor) and take measures on how to serve both the individual interests and that of the community at large (common good), communities wouldn't face the problems they do today.

See above.

For a community to stand the course of time, the community should acknowlegde that the needs and interests of individuals have changed and it's because those needs aren't being satisfied that members of a collective tend to look for 'better avenues'.

If communities are to stand the test of time, then expressive individualism must be done away with, as this is reason for their decline. The problem doesn't lay in the institution of the community or the family. The defect is in the individual, specifically, his/her belief that his/her own interests take precedence over those of others. This is a radically new doctrine.

It's the dissatisfaction with the collective that leads to rebellion towards the authority.

It is expressive individualism that leads to divorce, miscegenation, and community atrophy.

It all comes down to the inability to self-express and the lack of recognition within the community.

You are right. I have been saying that all along. Expressivism is the problem. It is expressive individualism that is causing the decline of collective institutions.

Our ancestors lived in a different time period and yet, they themselves witnessed and brought about a lot of revolutions while seeing to it that their communities evolved for the better.

This is because our ancestors had a radically different understanding of the world and the place of the individual in that world.

They set standards one after the other.

These standards have been pushed aside by modern expressive individualists.

When a collective stagnates and worse holds onto past ideals that are impossible to uphold in modern times, they collapse.

It is unreasonable to expect collective institutions (of any form, really) to coexist with expressive individualism.

Our ancestors set the foundation but their descendants should add on to that foundation and not stagnate.

These people are more interested in demolishing that foundation.

I agree that an individual doesn't always know what lies in his/her best interests but overlooking their needs and interests doesn't help either.

There is only one cure for ignorance.

What should be a concern is the lack of good role models in present times.

I agree.

The individualist you describe here is rebelling against? Past corrupted authorities.

The individualist is simply expressing his/her ignorance.

When there is no trust within a community, what else can you expect?

The lack of trust within communities is a sign of disunity. Disunity in turn is caused by individualism.

Surely, one can cannot deny that within communities themselves certain leaders have abused their power and authority.

What is an abuse of power and authority?

One should realize that just as some customs and traditions within a community are good, some are limiting and do not help the community evolve.

The community has no more fundamental interest than self preservation.

When those are overlooked, it results in what we are witnessing today: the break-up of whole communities.

As I have said, the problem is expressive individualism.

I do not consider myself liberal. Quite the contrary, I pretty tend towards conservative and yet, I believe that the reason individuals do not submit to the authority of a community is due to the unwillingness of that community to recognize that there might be certain problems or corruption within the community as well.

I don't believe that at all. The reason why individuals are so contemptuous of collective norms today is because of the assumption that their license to express whatever juvenille and/or ignorant opinions they have takes precedence over the common good of the community. This is individualism in action.

Why are communities failing? It's their inability to cope and deal with

Individualism.

1. the modern social pressures that the adherents face 2. the rapidly changing needs of the individual in present times.

i.e., expressive individualism.

I have to add though that unless the collective recognizes the needs of all its followers and not just those that are in authority, will it be able to make sure that its adherents do not stray away.

See above.

[Sandee]

I will get back to you both later. Been busy.

@Shane: I will reply to Fade first and then to you. Is that ok?

[Jonathan]

@Shane: I will reply to Fade first and then to you. Is that ok?
lol Of course.

P.S. What could I do about it anyway?:p

[Fade the Butcher]

That was a lazy post. I made it before going to sleep last night.

[raven]

This may be a cliche answer but I say people should definately value their culture and ethnicity because it is important to never forget your roots. Much knowledge would be lost if we placed no importance on our ethnic culture/heritage.

[Sandee]

I would go further than that. Humans are social beings and thought is a social process. Individuals are unable to develop their higher cognitive capacities when isolated from the collective. They can be counted as lucky if they even manage to survive. Collectives are self sufficient. Individuals are not. They cannot reproduce themselves in isolation. The individual must be understood as a part in relation to a whole, not as an island unto himself. The collective has primacy.

Interdependence.

The issue here is why any given individual should value his culture or ethnicity.

I'll answer the 'why' part.

1. Maintaining Identity

An individual always identifies himself/herself by association (shared characteristics, heritage, culture) and w.r.t others.

Example (w.r.t):
I am of indian descent versus she is of french descent.
I am non-white versus she is white.
I am agnostic versus she is catholic.

Example: When a person says I'm a white, christian, canadian-born resident of french descent. (He identifies with his race, his religion, his country and also, french heritage).

By association:
Christians
Canadians
French
Whites

To value and preserve culture or ethnicity ensures that one can continue to maintain one's identity.

Even if there is conflict of interests in certain areas, individuals always identify themselves as part of a group with which they share some/many common grounds.

2. Preserving diversity by preserving homogeneity.

Loss/melting down of cultures = Loss of diversity.

3. Preserving those very traditions, values, morals, etc that helped propelled cultures.

Note that preserving cultures doesn't necessarily mean one can't be self-reliant within a community and within reasonable limits. In the same way, it does't mean they can't contribute.

Individualism is the reason why communities are falling apart. This mentality can also be blamed for the decline of the family and the rise in miscegenation.

People with strong individualistic tendencies should be absorbed back into the culture. I believe that some are well-meaning and can be made to contribute. Some obviously are way too selfish, so there is no loss there if they depart.

I also agree that many of the social ills are due to the breakdown of the family unit. As for miscegenation, I will have to concede. Preservation of traditions, values and anything pertaining to a culture has a price attached to it. So, yes, communities need some healthy barriers. However, even within a certain race there are varying cultures. So an English white guy marrying a French white woman, will also eventually lead to culture loss.

I focus on the past and the future, not the present, as the present lasts only for a moment. The past and the future stretch forward and backward to eternity. The present is only explicable as a culmination of historical trends.

I respect the ancestors (There is so much one can learn from the past; The ancestors are a source of inspiration) but I focus on the present because it is your actions today that will forge the future.


Sure, one should recognize merit where merit is due but if our ancestors set the standards and their descendants don't set similar praiseworthy standards, no wonder communities are slowly losing their adherents.
I personally don't believe our contemporaries are worthy of praise.

How about individuals that share your ideologies? Why not group together and form a community within that community you disapprove? There is strength in unity, as you said above.

Also, what about the efforts of those trying to preserve traditions, values, etc and promote progress and survival of cultures?


The succeeding contributions of recent adherents being taken for granted is to be blamed for the lack of cohesion within a collective.
Communities are losing their cohesion because of hyper individualism.

There need to be a line drawn. What is reasonable and good for the community and what should be rejected.


Don't contributing individuals within a community need a little bit of recognition for their personal efforts?
These contributions are never separate from their social and historical context.

They perpetuate and add on to previous contributions. An 'innovative' contribution can be a good thing for the community. Some are bad and should be rejected. I maintain that a person who is somewhat self-reliant (to some degree) can be made to contribute for the common good.


(Nowadays, people take things for granted. My ancestors did this. My ancestors did that.)
This is individualism in action.

Some individualists want to be self-reliant and to pursue their own personal interests so what their ancestors achieved might not matter to them indeed. Some might actually care about preserving traditions, etc.

Actually, it's more to do with birthright: 'I take pride in what my ancestors did, yet why should I make personal efforts and contribute' In short, they don't want to do their part.

So, even those that value traditions, customs and such might not be doing enough for the community no matter how well-intentioned they might be.

I don't live in a community. I live in a liberal state. It would make little sense for me to contribute to a form of association that I despise; that despises people like me in turn.

Well, you can always associate with those who sympathize with your stance and support and promote your/their ideals.

For now, you might be working for a community (at large) you despise but nothing can stop you from contributing to that specific group that you support. It's not the way you might prefer it to be, I reckon, but it's doing what the best you can in that situation.


2. Are the efforts of contributing individuals being valued and recognized within the community?
The community is seen today as nothing more than a voluntary association of free individuals who contract with each other to pursue their own individual ends.

That may be but if a specific community had more volunteers, it could slow revert back to the selfless working for 'common good' ideal you aspire to.

There is a big emphasis upon individual self-expression today that wasn't around a few generations ago.

We have to be realist. Yes, that is so. Cultures can absorb the good and do away with the bad. Those individualists that can contribute can be drawn back into their cultures. The incentive should be to win them back. As for those individualists that want to break away from the lot and have no desire to preserve their cultures, what loss is there really?

People not finding their worth within the community normally go seek recognition elsewhere or think they can on their own.
This is already individualism.

Just condemn them, eh? It could be a positive thing to help contributors(that tend towards individualism) assimilate and express themselves within reasonable bounds. In the same way, shun the disruptors. It's all a matter of differentiating between who can be a potential contributor and who the communities can best do without.


If communities were to acknowledge that modern individuals strive for recognition of their OWN contributions (not that of a distant ancestor) and take measures on how to serve both the individual interests and that of the community at large (common good), communities wouldn't face the problems they do today.
See above.

If they are self-reliant within a community but can be made to contribute in a positive way, what is wrong with that?


For a community to stand the course of time, the community should acknowlegde that the needs and interests of individuals have changed and it's because those needs aren't being satisfied that members of a collective tend to look for 'better avenues'.
If communities are to stand the test of time, then expressive individualism must be done away with, as this is reason for their decline. The problem doesn't lay in the institution of the community or the family. The defect is in the individual, specifically, his/her belief that his/her own interests take precedence over those of others. This is a radically new doctrine.

Just because I choose to be self-reliant need not necessarily mean I will not contribute and help support my kind.

Ideally, everybody should be selfless. I'm being realistic. How many actually are? Personally, I would be more concerned with winning back potential contributors (individualists) and reviving in them a love of their heritage, culture and such.

I agree that the family unit and community should take precedence.

Note that those that are willing to preserve the sanctity of marriage, the institution of family/community, etc will work together (whether they are individualistic or not).

Then, you have others who couldn't care less. As for them, no real loss here.


It's the dissatisfaction with the collective that leads to rebellion towards the authority.
It is expressive individualism that leads to divorce, miscegenation, and community atrophy.

If taken to extremes, yes.


It all comes down to the inability to self-express and the lack of recognition within the community.
You are right. I have been saying that all along. Expressivism is the problem. It is expressive individualism that is causing the decline of collective institutions.

My point is: Certain individuals can be potential contributors whilst others are just disruptors.


Our ancestors lived in a different time period and yet, they themselves witnessed and brought about a lot of revolutions while seeing to it that their communities evolved for the better.

This is because our ancestors had a radically different understanding of the world and the place of the individual in that world.

Which no longer is the case today. I'm trying to be realistic here.


They set standards one after the other.
These standards have been pushed aside by modern expressive individualists.

Communities have lost both potential contributors and disruptors. It's the contributors that I am concerned with.


When a collective stagnates and worse holds onto past ideals that are impossible to uphold in modern times, they collapse.
It is unreasonable to expect collective institutions (of any form, really) to coexist with expressive individualism.

But isn't is reasonable to try to absorb individualists and slowly get them to revert back to the selfless ideals you evoke?

Let them be self-reliant (as long as it's positive and they're contributing) and then, win them back to their roots.


Our ancestors set the foundation but their descendants should add on to that foundation and not stagnate.
These people are more interested in demolishing that foundation.

Sadly, many have.


The individualist you describe here is rebelling against? Past corrupted authorities.
The individualist is simply expressing his/her ignorance.

If the ultimate end, is to break away from their culture and exist independently, granted. If the focus is to progress and contribute (while being self-sufficient) to the community, then no.


When there is no trust within a community, what else can you expect?
The lack of trust within communities is a sign of disunity. Disunity in turn is caused by individualism.

Depends on how that Individualism is used. Becoming self-reliant to help others doesn't cause disunity. OTOH, becoming self-reliant and not caring about your kind will cause disunity.


Surely, one can cannot deny that within communities themselves certain leaders have abused their power and authority. What is an abuse of power and authority?

To advance at the expense of others but not contribute in return.

If they contribute and help the community emancipate, this is good use of power and authority. If they don't. it's misuse of that very same power and authority.


One should realize that just as some customs and traditions within a community are good, some are limiting and do not help the community evolve.
The community has no more fundamental interest than self preservation.

You mean have interest but for the selfless adherents only?


When those are overlooked, it results in what we are witnessing today: the break-up of whole communities.
As I have said, the problem is expressive individualism.

Do you really believe that were you to, say,become 'self-sufficient' to some degree (within your community), it would stop you from contributing for the 'common good'? In fact, you will have far more potential to do so.


I do not consider myself liberal. Quite the contrary, I pretty tend towards conservative and yet, I believe that the reason individuals do not submit to the authority of a community is due to the unwillingness of that community to recognize that there might be certain problems or corruption within the community as well.
I don't believe that at all. The reason why individuals are so contemptuous of collective norms today is because of the assumption that their license to express whatever juvenille and/or ignorant opinions they have takes precedence over the common good of the community. This is individualism in action.

Yeah, but do every individual fit into that category? Some want to advance but will contribute.



Why are communities failing? It's their inability to cope and deal with

Individualism.

1. the modern social pressures that the adherents face 2. the rapidly changing needs of the individual in present times.
i.e., expressive individualism.

I have to add though that unless the collective recognizes the needs of all its followers and not just those that are in authority, will it be able to make sure that its adherents do not stray away.
See above.


And hence my stance on winning back potential contributors and shunning disruptors.

[Fade the Butcher]

Interdependence.The collective has primacy over the individual. It is the whole. The individual is the part. The collective is self sufficient. The individual is not. You are right. The collective and the individual are interdependent. The distinction between the two is a false one created by liberalism, as individuals nowhere live outside of a collective context.1. Maintaining Identity What is the value of such identities? Isn't that what is in dispute? If the value of such identities is justified on the grounds of individual self-expression, then who is to say that individuals are wrong for repudiating them?To value and preserve culture or ethnicity ensures that one can continue to maintain one's identity. What if the individual prefers some other identity?Even if there is conflict of interests in certain areas, individuals always identify themselves as part of a group with which they share some/many common grounds. Asocials are quite common. I encounter them all the time.2. Preserving diversity by preserving homogeneity. Loss/melting down of cultures = Loss of diversity.This is definitely a problem. Nothing can be done about it though as long as the self-expression of the individual is held to be sacrosanct.3. Preserving those very traditions, values, morals, etc that helped propelled cultures. Note that preserving cultures doesn't necessarily mean one can't be self-reliant within a community and within reasonable limits. In the same way, it does't mean they can't contribute.You are finally hitting close to the truth of why such identities are valuable: they function as a means to a higher end.People with strong individualistic tendencies should be absorbed back into the culture. I believe that some are well-meaning and can be made to contribute. Some obviously are way too selfish, so there is no loss there if they depart. The question for the collectivist is thus how is individualism to be combatted. A proper response would be that we should expect this sort of anarchy in liberal societies. The individual and his precious freedom is the sine qua non of liberalism.I also agree that many of the social ills are due to the breakdown of the family unit. As for miscegenation, I will have to concede.The important point to remember here is that individualism is the fundamental cause of such social ills. The man who cheats on his wife values his own sexual pleasure more than his spouse. The woman who commits miscegenation values her lifestyle preference more than her race. The mother who divorces her husband to pursue her career values her own feelings more than those of her family. Preservation of traditions, values and anything pertaining to a culture has a price attached to it. So, yes, communities need some healthy barriers. Such values, traditions, barriers and so on are justifiable if they serve some higher end.However, even within a certain race there are varying cultures. So an English white guy marrying a French white woman, will also eventually lead to culture loss.i.e., America.I respect the ancestors (There is so much one can learn from the past; The ancestors are a source of inspiration) but I focus on the present because it is your actions today that will forge the future. One of the most important reasons I focus so much on the past is because our actions in the present are only explicable in their social and historical context. That is another way of saying decisions made in the past structure the present; even how think about the present.How about individuals that share your ideologies?Also, what about the efforts of those trying to preserve traditions, values, etc and promote progress and survival of cultures?I was referring to my contemporaries in the general sense. Most of them do not share my perspective.Why not group together and form a community within that community you disapprove? There is strength in unity, as you said above.That isn't possible.They perpetuate and add on to previous contributions. True.An 'innovative' contribution can be a good thing for the community. Some are bad and should be rejected. I maintain that a person who is somewhat self-reliant (to some degree) can be made to contribute for the common good. The point I am making is that innovation is made possible by a certain type of context and must be understood in that light.Some individualists want to be self-reliant and to pursue their own personal interests so what their ancestors achieved might not matter to them indeed. Some might actually care about preserving traditions, etc.
There are certainly individualists who feel that way. This is merely a fallacy of their egoism though. They are not self reliant. They draw upon the resources of others in countless ways.So, even those that value traditions, customs and such might not be doing enough for the community no matter how well-intentioned they might be.Such people definitely exist.Well, you can always associate with those who sympathize with your stance and support and promote your/their ideals. Not really. We don't even have freedom of association anymore. It is illegal.For now, you might be working for a community (at large) you despise but nothing can stop you from contributing to that specific group that you support. It's not the way you might prefer it to be, I reckon, but it's doing what the best you can in that situation. This is pretty much what I do.That may be but if a specific community had more volunteers, it could slow revert back to the selfless working for 'common good' ideal you aspire to.Possibly.We have to be realist. Yes, that is so.This type of mentality has its origins in socioeconomic changes. It is the ideal of the consumer.Cultures can absorb the good and do away with the bad. Those individualists that can contribute can be drawn back into their cultures. The incentive should be to win them back. This won't be necessary. Their way of life is unsustainable in the long run and will collapse upon itself in a few generations.As for those individualists that want to break away from the lot and have no desire to preserve their cultures, what loss is there really?There is a huge loss when this becomes a dominant theme in our culture.Just condemn them, eh? It could be a positive thing to help contributors(that tend towards individualism) assimilate and express themselves within reasonable bounds.Individualism has to be condemned. It is like fighting a virus. The virus has to be identified and isolated before action can be taken against it.In the same way, shun the disruptors. It's all a matter of differentiating between who can be a potential contributor and who the communities can best do without.Communities definitely need the vast majority of their members. Communities cannot survive when the majority of the population embraces expressive individualism.If they are self-reliant within a community but can be made to contribute in a positive way, what is wrong with that? The individual isn't self sufficient.Just because I choose to be self-reliant need not necessarily mean I will not contribute and help support my kind. Individuals are not self reliant. In fact, this is the fundamental reason they are always found within collectives. They are not equal in their abilities either. The origins of society lay in lack of equality and self sufficiency amongst individuals. It is quite fair to say: in the beginning there was inequality.Ideally, everybody should be selfless. I'm being realistic.I don't condemn selfishness per se. It is individual selfishness taken to extremes that I dislike.How many actually are? Personally, I would be more concerned with winning back potential contributors (individualists) and reviving in them a love of their heritage, culture and such. A good place to start would be the public education system.My point is: Certain individuals can be potential contributors whilst others are just disruptors.This is true. These disruptors, however, are often just ignorant of their true interests. This defect lies ultimately in the structure of the liberal political system.Which no longer is the case today. I'm trying to be realistic here.This problem derives ultimately from two sources: the nature of our economy and the structure of our political system.Communities have lost both potential contributors and disruptors. It's the contributors that I am concerned with. I am more interested in the causes at work here and what can be done to rectify the situation.But isn't is reasonable to try to absorb individualists and slowly get them to revert back to the selfless ideals you evoke?That would be a goal, yes. It would require a drastic overhaul of our economy and political system.Let them be self-reliant (as long as it's positive and they're contributing) and then, win them back to their roots. This doesn't cut to the heart of the problem: the underlying economic and political structure that generates such a mentality.If the ultimate end, is to break away from their culture and exist independently, granted. If the focus is to progress and contribute (while being self-sufficient) to the community, then no.The decision to break away from the community to pursue an ideal life of individual self expression has a source. The destruction and elimination of that source must be the upmost priority to those who seek to reform the current system.Depends on how that Individualism is used. Individualism is disunity by its very nature. Individualism is the doctrine of the primacy of the individual over the collective.Becoming self-reliant to help others doesn't cause disunity. OTOH, becoming self-reliant and not caring about your kind will cause disunity. It is important to remember that the individual is not self reliant.You mean have interest but for the selfless adherents only? No. I am just saying that the preservation of its own existence has to be the top priority of any community.Do you really believe that were you to, say,become 'self-sufficient' to some degree (within your community), it would stop you from contributing for the 'common good'? In fact, you will have far more potential to do so. It would be pointless to contribute to the common good if I were self sufficient. I am not self sufficient. That is why I live in a collective context.Yeah, but do every individual fit into that category? Some want to advance but will contribute. Individual and individualism are not coterminous.And hence my stance on winning back potential contributors and shunning disruptors.It will prove necessary to strike at the source of this mentality: the economic and political structure of our society.

[Sandee]

Before I nose-dive into this, could you briefly describe your ideology (just so I can get a bit of perspective)? I’ll do likewise if you wish. Looks like you’re an individualist with a certain sense of duty to others. You also maintained that you were a conservative in one post.

Realist? :P

Conservative Democrat.

I'm 100 % for self-improvement (I prefer that term to self-reliant) in as long as one is grateful enough and recognizes how one got to where one is today and that is, thanks to the investment and efforts of predecessors and contemporaries.

So, indeed one should have a sense of duty towards the community and therefore contribute as much as one can.

Use the resources but invest back. In the end, one will not only profit from it but so will others.

Thanks. I’ve never done it before, but if you want me to, I will.

I don't do it everytime. Only for certain quotes/posts. It's up to you, really. :)

Because, for example, you may think that you can survive and/or prosper independently of the community. Hard-line individualists actively promote this mode of thinking.

One can't live in total independence of a collective. It's common knowledge that the whole cannot function without its different parts and in the same way, the different parts are useless when not connected to the whole.

Being ambitious however is another story. Ambition is good if it can be rewarding to the community. It's bad if it's at the detriment of the community i.e. the individual doesn't contribute to the community.

Weren't the ancestors (many who could be considered elites) themselves individuals that strived to make a difference? They perfected themselves so as to be able to lead the others and ensure the progress of their communities.
You’re already dividing up the collective into “those who perfect themselves and lead” and “the others”. The ancestors weren’t necessarily “individuals that strived to make a difference” but “members of the collective that strived to make a difference”. It’s a different concept. One sees “themselves in the collective”, the other sees “the collective”.*

To me, good leaders are good public servants. They make a difference but it is ONLY because the collective acknowledges that difference and approves of it because they benefit from it. No followers = no leaders.

*Different concepts, true but whether one sees "the collective" or sees "oneself in the collective", what counts ultimately is that one supports the collective.

One that takes the best of what the community has to offer and maximizes its resources is one who is, according to me, worthy of respect.

Another analogy that best describes how I feel about the subject:

The brain and the heart are two different organs with different functions and yet they are both vital. It's the brain that controls the heart. Indeed, without the heart, the brain can't survive because the heart supplies it with its basic nutrients. However, it's the brain that controls and sustains the whole system.

In the same way, good leaders are important. An authority is necessary. A society needs individuals in pro-eminent key positions to lead the others. Note that it's because the majority approves of being led and because they know they will have their best interests served and protected by the ones that represent them. The majority supports its representatives. I respect good leaders for the same reason.

What is wrong with an individual striving to meet her/his personal needs while at the same time supporting the community?
You are implying that the personal needs are necessarily different from that of the collective(later on you say “it is a two way thing”). This is not necessarily the case though, communities survived for thousands of years before being broken down because they didn’t meet new “personal needs”, where were these needs for the previous thousands of year? And what brought them about?*

A better term would be 'wants'. Basic needs and interests are normally met by communities in general. Personal wants may or may not be satisfied.

*People are becoming more and more materialistic and selfish.

I still think however that some can be made to contribute and invest in their respective communities (even if they're materialist/selfish).

Those that seek self-improvement but still have an interest in their cultures, traditions, etc make potential promoters. Reviving a minimal sense of duty towards the community can help achieve a lot.

But sadly, you have some (many actually) who definitely don't care. There's nothing much one can do. To them, cultures, etc, aren't important. If you see what I mean? Those are the ungrateful ones.

Is it a question of either this or that?
You seem to be implying so with the statement above.
Does one really need to do away with one's individual interests for the sake of the community?
But what are these individual interests that are incompatible with the community? They weren’t always around.

I think it all comes down to striking a balance between basic needs/interests (usually not a problem) and personal wants. There are wants that may be reasonable, worthy or commendable.

And obviously. there are also wants that need to be stifled because they don't help the community.

Needs are generally satisfied in most communities. Wants may or may not be.

Why can't one serve both one's interests and that of the community too?
One can – such was the case for thousands of years. Only lately have the communities been falling apart under the demands for these “personal interests”.

I view it like an investment. Strive for self-improvement and personal success but invest back in the community. Help yourself but assist others as well.

What is more important in the long run? Preserving that community or looking for an ideal where most, if not all, of the adherents are selfless?
The “common good” i.e. “Preserving that community”

You can be selfish to a degree (Like me. I'm not gonna claim to be selfless. That will make me a hypocrite.) and still somewhat have a sense of duty towards others and want to 'preserve that community'.

Some people are [closet]Free-riders.

Those that don't invest in their community in any way, yes.

Really? But the way you say Why can't one serve both one's interests and that of the community too? seems to imply that one is different from the other.

I meant some personal wants (not exuberant or burdensome ones of course) can be compatible were the individuals to contribute. Certain cultures are very opposed to some changes that can in fact turn out to be beneficial for their own long term preservation for example.

In any case, when individuals take from the community to pursue their personal wants (reasonable ones), have them invest in the community in return. And inculcate in them the need to preserve traditions and values.

IMO there are certain [unnecessary] “personal interests” which go against the grain of the community. But these are not “needs”.

I should have used the term 'wants'. Some can be made good use of and some are definitely detrimental.

But an Individual is one who sees themselves in terms of “me and the others” as opposed to a “member of the collective” who sees “we the collective”.

Differentiation between individuals is natural (me and the others). Yet, individuals will remain bound to the collective for sustenance of the self (I need the others to survive).

Whether they break away to form another collective or remain in the community, it's still about sustenance. It's still about the self.

There are individuals that are just better at maximizing the resources provided by the communities compared to others. Those that are better should look after the others. If they don't, they're egocentric.

Even members of a collective that sees themselves as 'we the collective' are selfish to some degree. To claim otherwise, is to not be very honest. It's all about sustaining oneself. In other words, survival.

But a community is made up of individuals that even though they strive for the common good and contribute as much as they can, have their personal needs too.
What are these personal needs which go against the grain of the community? On the one hand you say “it is a two way thing” then you say there are “personal needs” despite the “common good”.

Personal wants rather. Some can be put to good use.

Because a focus on "individual" achievements leads to a collapse of the community.

How can self-achievements and self-improvement lead to collapse of a society?

If you invest in that community (i.e. you just don't take from it but you give back as well) wouldn't that actually be a good thing?

Can't an individual be proud of his/her efforts and yet also take pride in his/her heritage and in perpetuating the 'common cause' as you say?
They can, until this happens at the expense of the collective. It’s a matter of drawing a line perhaps.

Agree.

You haven’t answered the original question though:
[Quote=sandee]For a community to stand the course of time, the community should acknowlegde that the needs and interests of individuals have changed
What brought about this change IYO?[/Quote]

The trend towards materialism. It affects one and all.

You have not answered the question:
1)When did "self-expression" become so important? Once upon a time they said everyone just wanted to "fit in".

Materialism. The focus is no longer about fitting in. It's about material possessions. This affects everyone. Self-expression is one of the ways of promoting the self for material rewards.

What past ideals and why are they impossible to uphold?

Those that overlook or downplay the personal 'wants' of individuals and that too, even though some could be beneficial if put to good use.

I’ve lost you hereL What brought about the lack of role models IYO?

Due to the materialistic trend in recent times, the focus is on how relatively economically productive a member of a collective is and not on how one contributes in other ways.

So-called 'good role models' nowadays are not necessarily those that uphold traditions, values and cultures but those that are solely successful (materially).

The real good role models will be those that can promote culture preservation while not disregarding the material wants of a community.

Good question. What leads an individual to be dissatisfied with his/her community when all is provided for?
*ahem* Yes, that is what I asked you. What is your answer?
Yes, and such was the case for thousands of years. Only recently with the rise of new so-called “needs” has the community failed to meet it’s member’s needs. I maintain that these are unnecessary/fake “needs”.

'wants' would be a better term. Materialism is the reason why.

I’m very sceptical about any sort of “leader class” within a society. They tend to act in their own interests at the expense of the majority.

Well, every society needs a 'leader' and I gave my reasons why above. Maybe the term representative is better. Good Leaders can make good public servants as well.

One can still however follow one's interests within reasonable bounds while contributing to the community at large.
This is the crux of the issue. Where does one draw the line?

Those personal interests or wants should be put to good use and be a source of revenue to the community without compromising traditions, values and morals. If not, they should be done away with.

I personally believe that it's an internal problem (within the community).
What brought about this problem? It didn’t exist until recent times.

Materialism. Competition for resources. It just doesn't affect certain individuals. It affects all.

Or:
[Quote=Vlad Tepes]
That is not the answer this question demands. What in particular is fundamentally different about modern man that necessitates different "needs"? Everyone realizes quite well that "things change over time," but why a specific change must occur requires a better analysis than a mere platitude. [/Quote]

Materialism. It began with competition for resources as a collective versus other collectives and now it's divisive (when extreme importance is given to it) mostly because it's internalized (within the community).

So, why not cater to their individual needs while at the same time instilling in them a strong sense of community adhesion and the notion of working for the common cause?
Because the community cannot meet these new faux “needs”.

Invest in the individuals and have them invest back in the community.

[Helios Panoptes]

Materialism. The focus is no longer about fitting in. It's about material possessions. This affects everyone. Self-expression is one of the ways of promoting the self for material rewards.

It's still about "fitting in." Materialistic pursuits allow one to accumulate objects of great sign exchange value, which leads to acceptance by the most esteemed social groups. Hardly anyone would care about material possessions if not for the social impact displaying them has.

[Jonathan]

Conservative Democrat.

I'm 100 % for self-improvement (I prefer that term to self-reliant) in as long as one is grateful enough and recognizes how one got to where one is today and that is, thanks to the investment and efforts of predecessors and contemporaries.

So, indeed one should have a sense of duty towards the community and therefore contribute as much as one can.

Use the resources but invest back. In the end, one will not only profit from it but so will others.
Thanks.


I don't do it everytime. Only for certain quotes/posts. It's up to you, really. :)
:o Sorry, I was trying, but I just confused myself :( This is the second time that I'm typing this message:rofl:!

Being ambitious however is another story. Ambition is good if it can be rewarding to the community. It's bad if it's at the detriment of the community i.e. the individual doesn't contribute to the community.
Agreed.

To me, good leaders are good public servants. They make a difference but it is ONLY because the collective acknowledges that difference and approves of it because they benefit from it.
So you only believe in reciprocal altruism?

I can't really prove you wrong, all I can say is that I disagree. There is more than reciprocal altruism. IMO there is such thing as a kind of extended amoral familism that can extend to communities.

*Different concepts, true but whether one sees "the collective" or sees "oneself in the collective", what counts ultimately is that one supports the collective.
I agree with this actually. The end justifies the means.

One that takes the best of what the community has to offer and maximizes its resources is one who is, according to me, worthy of respect.
ditto.

In the same way, good leaders are important. An authority is necessary. A society needs individuals in pro-eminent key positions to lead the others. Note that it's because the majority approves of being led and because they know they will have their best interests served and protected by the ones that represent them. The majority supports its representatives. I respect good leaders for the same reason.
I agree with all this, I just have a problem with the notion of "individuals who lead" because if they see themselves as "the individual who lead", power goes to their head, and they act in their own interests. But an "individual who leads" that still see identifies themselves as one of the collective is is acceptable(it almost down to semantics at this point!).


A better term would be 'wants'. Basic needs and interests are normally met by communities in general. Personal wants may or may not be satisfied.
^This is vital. The distinction between 'wants' and 'needs'. The community can meet it's members 'needs' but not always their 'wants'. This is the cause of the collapse of the community, the elevation of certain unnecessary 'wants' to God like status. As 'wants' are not necessities, it follows that there is no 'need' for the break down of communities or for individualism.

*People are becoming more and more materialistic and selfish.
The former motivates the latter. The formers is the number one 'want' and cause of the collapse of the community.

Where did this ultra materialism/consumerism come from? That's probably an issue for another thread although I've heard that the Puritan work ethic has something to do with it.

I still think however that some can be made to contribute and invest in their respective communities (even if they're materialist/selfish).
Possibly, although they are hazzardous.

I think it all comes down to striking a balance between basic needs/interests (usually not a problem) and personal wants. There are wants that may be reasonable, worthy or commendable.
True.

Needs are generally satisfied in most communities.
I would go so far as to say that all true needs are satisfied by the community. This is why communities came into existance and why they has lasted this long.

You can be selfish to a degree (Like me. I'm not gonna claim to be selfless. That will make me a hypocrite.) and still somewhat have a sense of duty towards others and want to 'preserve that community'.
True.

Certain cultures are very opposed to some changes that can in fact turn out to be beneficial
Better the devil you know that the one you don't.

Whether they break away to form another collective or remain in the community, it's still about sustenance. It's still about the self.
I disagree. I wouldn't say it's all about the self. That seems very egoistic/calculating/utilitarian. What about Hunger Strikers for example? They seem to be acting irrationally, but it's because they believe in a higher cause that 'the self'.

How can self-achievements and self-improvement lead to collapse of a society?
Because when there are winners, there usually have to be loosers.

Materialism. The focus is no longer about fitting in. It's about material possessions. This affects everyone. Self-expression is one of the ways of promoting the self for material rewards.
As Vlad Tepes said, it's still about fitting-in to a degree. But I think we're one the one tract about materialism.

Those that overlook or downplay the personal 'wants' of individuals and that too, even though some could be beneficial if put to good use.
Better the devil you know...

The real good role models will be those that can promote culture preservation while not disregarding the material wants of a community.
I'd say those who further the common good(not a huge difference with what you've said yourself though).

Well, every society needs a 'leader' and I gave my reasons why above. Maybe the term representative is better. Good Leaders can make good public servants as well.
Yeah representative would be better IMO. As I said, leaders tend to act in their own interests. This is one area where I tend to disagree with Fade, about who should be the leaders. Although the "common man" isn't the most intelligent, I don't think he's the stupidest either, so representative democracies are still my best choice of a bad lot for governance IMO.

[Sandee]

Sorry for the delay in replying.

The collective has primacy over the individual. It is the whole. The individual is the part. The collective is self sufficient. The individual is not. You are right. The collective and the individual are interdependent. The distinction between the two is a false one created by liberalism, as individuals nowhere live outside of a collective context.

No individual can truly be self-sufficient. It's all about perception really (An individual perceives himself/herself as self-reliant or self-sufficient.).

Those individuals can achieve self-improvement (a nice compromise). See, some individuals maximize their communities' resources better than others.

No individual is completely selfless as well but they can engage in acts that can be regarded as selfless.

What is the value of such identities?

They are valuable to those that attach importance to such identities because of what they represent (in the past, present and future). Many are proud of their heritage. Many are concerned about their own idea of long term benefits of preserving such identities. So, they should have the right to preserve and perpetuate it. It's a right.

Isn't that what is in dispute? If the value of such identities is justified on the grounds of individual self-expression, then who is to say that individuals are wrong for repudiating them?

'Right or wrong' is subjective. It's not even about what's right or wrong. It's about preserving the rights of culture/race adherents (their rights to authenticity). They have the right to preserve their (birthright)identities, the significance of such identities, etc. It includes values, traditions, morals, etc.

What if the individual prefers some other identity?

That may be but let's not forget that conflicts over identities occur too for some (those of mixed racial/cultural heritage).

Individuals can't possibly deny their genetic make-up (race) but true, they can choose alternate identities: family, sexuality, religion, politics and such. All those aforementioned are liable to change. One can even convert to another culture!

Race is the only birthright factor thats not changeable.

Now, for those that don't identify with their race but identify with culture, it should be noted that one can adopt another culture.

Examples:

1. A White British guy who marries a White French woman and has kids with her can choose to follow either British or French culture. It depends on such factors as for example: where they reside (France or England). This could lead to conversion from one culture to another. Not a drastic change (same race), mind you but still...why would it be considered less 'bad'? Cultures lose adherents this way.

2. A chinese woman who marries a white British guy (both living in the UK) and follows the culture of her husband will not lead to a loss of culture but a loss of homogeneity within that culture.

There may or may not be conflicts of loyalties that are felt by individuals with mixed culture/race (ancestral) heritage. The possibility of identity crises are often downplayed but in many cases, it does have an impact even though many are not willing to admit it. So, it's quite reasonable to say that to avoid the possibility of identity crises, one might prefer to stick to one's race and culture.

Asocials are quite common. I encounter them all the time.

Every generation has had its fair share of asocials. This behavior is just expressed in different forms: towards the society of others or within their own society. Wouldn't an isolationism concept (even as a collective) be considered asocial?

2. Preserving diversity by preserving homogeneity. Loss/melting down of cultures = Loss of diversity.
This is definitely a problem. Nothing can be done about it though as long as the self-expression of the individual is held to be sacrosanct.

Individual self-expression need not necessarily lead to loss of culture/race. I could be an individualist (I come first) but still choose to marry within my race or culture for instance.

I agree however that in the same way, individual self-expression can and does have a part to play in miscegenation, which in turn leads to loss of racial homogeneity within a culture.

Agreed that miscegenation = loss of racial homogeneity within a culture = loss of diversity.

So, what is at stake mostly is loss of racial homogeneity within a culture (There is loss of authenticity of a culture through racial mixing).

The question for the collectivist is thus how is individualism to be combatted.

I'd be interested to know how one can fight individualism. One can only promote altruism and imbibe members of a collective with a sense of duty towards the community. There are two opposite forces (radical individualism versus radical communalism) at work here. One can only tone down the other.

A proper response would be that we should expect this sort of anarchy in liberal societies. The individual and his precious freedom is the sine qua non of liberalism.

Too much freedom will backfire. Too often, people misuse their freedoms (independent of race or culture).

The important point to remember here is that individualism is the fundamental cause of such social ills.

Okay but what is the cause of this rapid increase in individualism according to you? So putting your own community above the society as a whole (radical communalism) will help bring down or do away with many of the social ills we face today in multicultural countries such as the Americas? Won't radical ethnocentrism (possible result of radical communalism) in a multicultural country bring about more disunity?

The man who cheats on his wife values his own sexual pleasure more than his spouse.

In the present day context:

Someone could be cheating on his wife and still be faithful to his race or culture. In this case, he's disrespectful to his wife.

Switch it around: Would you say that someone who married interracially (lifestyle preference) and then divorced his wife because of her race or culture, is any better? He's failing his duty as a husband but making a lifestyle choice to be loyal to his race and culture.

The woman who commits miscegenation values her lifestyle preference more than her race.

Technically, marrying within your race and culture can also be considered a lifestyle preference (to stick to tradition).

Only because it meets a higher end doesn't make it any less of a preference in today's context. Race is a birthright but traditions, values, customs are lifestyle patterns (developed in a specific social/environmental/time context suited for and perpetuated by the ancestral collective) that got passed down from one generation to the next. This is how we have different cultures even within a race too. Those lifestyle patterns are now merely lifestyle choices today.

The mother who divorces her husband to pursue her career values her own feelings more than those of her family.

Same as above.

If a mother quits her career to take care of her family, it's a lifestyle preference (In other words, she chooses to stick to tradition, values, etc).

An action following a choice can be regarded as selfless but the person might not necessarily be selfless. A lifestyle pattern that is passed down from one generation to the next (predecessors to successors) makes it tradition but it is a lifestyle choice in the present day context. Why? Because it is not essential to stick to tradition to be 'moral'. Heck, some cultures can be considered quite 'immoral': female circumcision, endocannibalism, slavery, stoning, etc. In the same way it is not essential to stick to religion or every single custom to value a culture. It is a preference. It is not a necessity.

Such values, traditions, barriers and so on are justifiable if they serve some higher end.

And that higher end (besides preserving authenticity of racial/cultural heritage) will be?

Sure, values, traditions, barriers helped propel certain cultures in the past but is all that a requirement today? What brought this about? Whether as a collective or as an individual, it's always been at the expense of another (independent of race/culture). Look at those cultures that could be considered stagnant or backward (just because they are set in their ways or are homogeneous), they now have to compete with other cultures for resources. They are dying out. Were the values and customs of all predecessors (in the past) that commendable? What brought about colonisation (independent of race)? Slavery (intraracial and interracial)? Religious wars? Was it Individualism in all cases? How so? It was still collectivism at work. Cultures going against other cultures. Tribes against tribes. Wars have been fought in the name of religion. Weren't people united in this? (This is for all races and cultures alike.) Even collectives can be selfish as a whole.

The real reason for preserving a collective is the same reason others use for their freedom of association, and that is the freedom to choose to preserve the authenticity of one's culture (one's birthright and also chosen and valued identity). IMHO, that is a honourable reason.

Bear in mind that anyone can commit immoral acts towards members of another culture and still promote the 'common good' of their own culture. Think holy wars, etc.

i.e., America.

A new 'culture'. Lol. Not that I agree to it, but it can be viewed as one.

I respect the ancestors (There is so much one can learn from the past; The ancestors are a source of inspiration) but I focus on the present because it is your actions today that will forge the future.
One of the most important reasons I focus so much on the past is because our actions in the present are only explicable in their social and historical context. That is another way of saying decisions made in the past structure the present; even how think about the present.

Errors of the past are felt in the present. Actions in the present may remediate those.

There are certainly individualists who feel that way. This is merely a fallacy of their egoism though. They are not self reliant. They draw upon the resources of others in countless ways.

Or they maximize those resources better than others.

We have to be realist. Yes, that is so.
This type of mentality has its origins in socioeconomic changes. It is the ideal of the consumer.

Interesting how consumerism as I examplified above can be both an individualism and collectivism problem. The past is a great teacher.

Cultures can absorb the good and do away with the bad. Those individualists that can contribute can be drawn back into their cultures. The incentive should be to win them back.
This won't be necessary. Their way of life is unsustainable in the long run and will collapse upon itself in a few generations.

Say that is that case. What guarantee is there that we won't see a resurgence of past mistakes even if we all revert back to past ideals? Humans tend to be quite stubborn as individuals and even more so when in a collective (w.r.t to other collectives).

As for those individualists that want to break away from the lot and have no desire to preserve their cultures, what loss is there really?
There is a huge loss when this becomes a dominant theme in our culture.

Many revert back to their roots. Haven't you? Wouldn't you consider it as your choice (a reasonable and valid one)?

Individualism has to be condemned. It is like fighting a virus. The virus has to be identified and isolated before action can be taken against it.

If a collective as a whole is selfish, materialistic, etc, then what gives?

Communities definitely need the vast majority of their members. Communities cannot survive when the majority of the population embraces expressive individualism.

OK. This still doesn't tackle problems like competing for resources, materialism, etc.

The individual isn't self sufficient.

Agreed. The individual seeks self-improvement. The problem is materialism and selfish attitudes that can affect individuals and collectives too.

Individuals are not self reliant. In fact, this is the fundamental reason they are always found within collectives. They are not equal in their abilities either. The origins of society lay in lack of equality and self sufficiency amongst individuals. It is quite fair to say: in the beginning there was inequality.

Yes. That doesn't explain how collectives as a whole have been intolerant, selfish, materialistic in the past vis à vis other collectives. Materialism can affect a collective as well as act as a divisive factor within the collective.

This is true. These disruptors, however, are often just ignorant of their true interests. This defect lies ultimately in the structure of the liberal political system.

Extreme liberalism is definitely chaotic.

Communities have lost both potential contributors and disruptors. It's the contributors that I am concerned with.
I am more interested in the causes at work here and what can be done to rectify the situation.

Individualism, right? Yet, collectives as a whole have committed injustices towards other collectives. What gives? How can one prevent such past errors?

This doesn't cut to the heart of the problem: the underlying economic and political structure that generates such a mentality.
The decision to break away from the community to pursue an ideal life of individual self expression has a source. The destruction and elimination of that source must be the upmost priority to those who seek to reform the current system.

Individualism is part of the problem. It doesn't explain how collectives too can be materialistic as a whole which can lead to their own collapse in terms of sustainability.

Individualism is disunity by its very nature. Individualism is the doctrine of the primacy of the individual over the collective.

Sure, collectivism is unity. A unified collective can still be selfish, materialistic, etc too which can bring about its own collapse.

It is important to remember that the individual is not self reliant.

Yes, a better term would be self-centred.

It would be pointless to contribute to the common good if I were self sufficient. I am not self sufficient. That is why I live in a collective context.

If you've made reasonable self-advancement and support your community and as I said to Shane (whether you see yourself 'in the collective' or you see 'the collective'), it is altruism when you are not required to but you help out of goodness of your heart or you do it for a purpose (reciprocal altruism).

[Sandee]

It's still about "fitting in." Materialistic pursuits allow one to accumulate objects of great sign exchange value, which leads to acceptance by the most esteemed social groups. Hardly anyone would care about material possessions if not for the social impact displaying them has.

Hm, I stand corrected. The way it's perceived is different though.

[Sandee]

To me, good leaders are good public servants. They make a difference but it is ONLY because the collective acknowledges that difference and approves of it because they benefit from it.
So you only believe in reciprocal altruism?

Yes. Altruism driven by purpose.

I can't really prove you wrong, all I can say is that I disagree.

Lol. It's okay to disagree with me. You won't be the first one. :)

There is more than reciprocal altruism. IMO there is such thing as a kind of extended amoral familism that can extend to communities.

Yes but the adherents are also concerned with and think in terms of sustainability and thus you have reciprocal altruism.

But an "individual who leads" that still see identifies themselves as one of the collective is is acceptable(it almost down to semantics at this point!).

IMHO, it's a reasonable compromise.

^This is vital. The distinction between 'wants' and 'needs'. The community can meet it's members 'needs' but not always their 'wants'. This is the cause of the collapse of the community, the elevation of certain unnecessary 'wants' to God like status. As 'wants' are not necessities, it follows that there is no 'need' for the break down of communities or for individualism.

Think in term of sustainability. Not just individualism. Collectives as a whole too can indulge in excesses (consumerism, materialism). It was so in the past.

Certain cultures are very opposed to some changes that can in fact turn out to be beneficial
Better the devil you know that the one you don't.

Lol. One way to look at it. I'm sure glad no one's forcing me into an arranged marriage though I personally choose to stick to customs and traditions.

Whether they break away to form another collective or remain in the community, it's still about sustenance. It's still about the self.
I disagree. I wouldn't say it's all about the self. That seems very egoistic/calculating/utilitarian. What about Hunger Strikers for example? They seem to be acting irrationally, but it's because they believe in a higher cause that 'the self'.

Hunger strikes for a salary increase for all (Hey, I benefit too!)? :P

On a serious note, true but it's rare nowadays.

How can self-achievements and self-improvement lead to collapse of a society?
Because when there are winners, there usually have to be loosers.

So, if compared to another, I make better use of my communities' resources and make a lot of progress, it's not like I'm preventing that other person to do the same. However, I reckon that as a member of a collective, I should still have a sense of duty towards that collective.

Those that overlook or downplay the personal 'wants' of individuals and that too, even though some could be beneficial if put to good use.
Better the devil you know...

Lol. Is this going to be your preferred response to me from now on? :P

The real good role models will be those that can promote culture preservation while not disregarding the material wants of a community.
I'd say those who further the common good(not a huge difference with what you've said yourself though).

Agreed.

Yeah representative would be better IMO. As I said, leaders tend to act in their own interests. This is one area where I tend to disagree with Fade, about who should be the leaders. Although the "common man" isn't the most intelligent, I don't think he's the stupidest either, so representative democracies are still my best choice of a bad lot for governance IMO.

I concur.

[Jonathan]

Yes. Altruism driven by purpose.
But surely everything is driven by purpose. You could argue that every act of so-called altruism eventually comes down to satisfying one's own interests, but I'm sure you can see the difference between someone who give a friend a loan of money with expectations of being treated likewise, and someone who dies on hunger strike for a cause. While both are satisfying the individual's interests, one is less "narcissistic"(for lack of a better word) than the other.

Lol. It's okay to disagree with me. You won't be the first one. :)
Relative to where we were the first time I replied to your post, we've ironed out alot actually.:)

IMHO, it's a reasonable compromise.
Probably.

Think in term of sustainability. Not just individualism. Collectives as a whole too can indulge in excesses (consumerism, materialism). It was so in the past.
This is certainly true. Even collectives can have their faults.

Lol. One way to look at it.
meh, I'm always sceptical of change. It's probably just my personality.

I'm sure glad no one's forcing me into an arranged marriage though I personally choose to stick to customs and traditions.
I'm sure you'd be glad of an arranged marriage if you were ugly, incompitant, fat, dieing etc. and you didn't have notions of "love".

On a serious note, true but it's rare nowadays.
True, and that's exactly the problem(not that we don't have enough hunger strikers, but that there isn't enough people willing to lay down their lives for others). War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill (irony of ironies)

BTW, I'm not advocating war or anything incase you get that impression.

So, if compared to another, I make better use of my communities' resources and make a lot of progress, it's not like I'm preventing that other person to do the same. However, I reckon that as a member of a collective, I should still have a sense of duty towards that collective.
If there are winners, there are usually loosers. And to stay on top usually involves keeping the other guy down. It's almost a law of nature.

Lol. Is this going to be your preferred response to me from now on? :P
It's very handy.:D

Agreed.

I concur.
We're almost done so.:)

[Sandee]

But surely everything is driven by purpose. You could argue that every act of so-called altruism eventually comes down to satisfying one's own interests, but I'm sure you can see the difference between someone who give a friend a loan of money with expectations of being treated likewise, and someone who dies on hunger strike for a cause. While both are satisfying the individual's interests, one is less "narcissistic"(for lack of a better word) than the other.

Yes, I do see the difference if the cause is a worthy one.

However, there are situations where one can't expect another to be altruistic when he/she has other more pressing concerns. One can expect a lot from oneself but to impose it on another is something else altogether. For example, I would understand if a poor person is more concerned with food, money, getting a job (his concerns revolving around himself and his immediate family) than altruism (especially if he's trying to make ends meet, etc).

Since this debate is about preserving race and/or culture, and altruism is the unselfish concern about the welfare of others (not necessarily about a selective culture/race unless you want to limit altruism) can you possibly tell me how someone who chooses to marry outside his culture or race, for example, will be less altruistic than someone who chooses not to? Will he stop caring for the welfare of others in his community just because he chose to marry someone from another community? Preserving a culture and race is a worthy cause for members of a community but if a fellow member has to sacrifice his/her love, is the collective (as a whole) really caring about his/her welfare (happiness)?

I'm sure you'd be glad of an arranged marriage if you were ugly, incompitant, fat, dieing etc. and you didn't have notions of "love".

Why would I marry if I was dying? Lol.

As for arranged marriages, it's not always a bad thing but some women have been pressurized into marrying. Imagine being married to someone for the rest of your life and you don't especially like that person. What a nightmare.

True, and that's exactly the problem(not that we don't have enough hunger strikers, but that there isn't enough people willing to lay down their lives for others). War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill (irony of ironies)

BTW, I'm not advocating war or anything incase you get that impression.

I pretty much agree with that but one should choose one's battles wisely. There are causes in life that are worth dying for in the same way that there are causes that aren't worth fighting for.

If there are winners, there are usually loosers. And to stay on top usually involves keeping the other guy down. It's almost a law of nature.

Competing with others doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a winner to benefit. It could also mean the loser benefits in some way if, say, winners were to contribute back.

[Jonathan]

However, there are situations where one can't expect another to be altruistic when he/she has other more pressing concerns. One can expect a lot from oneself but to impose it on another is something else altogether. For example, I would understand if a poor person is more concerned with food, money, getting a job (his concerns revolving around himself and his immediate family) than altruism (especially if he's trying to make ends meet, etc).
I'd say it's all down to conditioning. I remember reading the account of a European(British?) traveller who was in remote Africa/Australia a century ago(or there abouts) who recorded meeting a destitute tribe who still offered what they could (at their own grave expence) to the traveller and his company because their culture regarded altruism/hospitality in the highest regard.

I know that's highly unusual, but it happens.

Since this debate is about preserving race and/or culture
I'm only concerned with culture. Unlike some posters, I have no loyalties to my "race".

and altruism is the unselfish concern about the welfare of others
Well in the context of this discussion, I think we were refering to altruism in so far as it was part of "group loyalty" (not that a any group need necessarily be antagonistic with another).

(not necessarily about a selective culture/race unless you want to limit altruism)
Throughout this thread I have always been concerned with the "group first" mentality. But altruism between groups is OK too.

can you possibly tell me how someone who chooses to marry outside his culture or race, for example, will be less altruistic than someone who chooses not to?
Oh it's all about the "choice" isn't it. What about the duty! :p Only Joking.

Seriously though, I don't see how anyone who marries out of their race/culture is any less altruistic.

*I also think that it is worth noting that when someone has a strong sense of "group loyalty" they tend not to be attracted to people from outside the group. This isn't always the case, of course, but it is a by-product of the kind of social-conditioning that goes on in a group context. "Birds of a feather, stick together" as the saying goes.

Will he stop caring for the welfare of others in his community just because he chose to marry someone from another community?
No, not necessarily.

We might need to make this more specific though. I know that in certain societies, the bride becomes a member of her husband's family. It may be the opposite in other societies. In the interest of social continuity, this may be for the best (not that it's necessarily any more or less altruistic over all).

Furthermore, it might do you good to look at it from the point of view of the children. Personally, I think it is in a child's best interests to grow up in a specific community, where that child has a definite identity, a benchmark etc.
Otherwise you may end up with alot of the problems we have today like youth suicide, identity crisis, depression, emotional instability, inferiority complex, helplessness etc

For example, I mention in another thread just a few days ago that many of the most prominent figures in the Irish struggle for independance were not quite fully Irish in one way or another. Pádraig Pearse's (who led the 1916 rising) father was a Protestant, Englishman. Eamon de Valera's (leader of anti-Treaty Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil) father was a Spaniard/Cuban. Douglas Hyde's (Irish language enthousiast, Nationalist, and first President of Ireland) father was a Protestant Clergyman. It's just a theory, but I recone that those men felt like they had to compensate for their so-called lack of Irishness (conciously of sub-conciously).


Preserving a culture and race is a worthy cause for members of a community but if a fellow member has to sacrifice his/her love, is the collective (as a whole) really caring about his/her welfare (happiness)?

1)As I've said, the kind of social conditioning which goes on in a community makes this a very unlikely occurance.
2)I don't see how the person would necessarily have to sacrifice their love. Outsiders can survive with a community and develope a sense of belonging.
3)Even if an individual did have to give up their love, the good of the collective comes before the good of the individual. Sometimes people have to give up their lives for the community.

Why would I marry if I was dying? Lol.
I ment it all in jest.:p

On a more serious note, you might marry when you are dying so that you could have a child before you die.

As for arranged marriages, it's not always a bad thing but some women have been pressurized into marrying.
And some men too. And just as importantly, some men/women have been kept from marrying.

Imagine being married to someone for the rest of your life and you don't especially like that person. What a nightmare.
Actually that's not as bad as you think. Most people get along with each other over time. Secondly, even if you didn't like the person, you still might have mutually benificial interests (raising a child for example).

It's only in the last while that the idea of "marrying for love and living happily ever after" has come about. If you read accounts of medieval nobles et al. for example, some of them were married at 12 to partners they had never met, and still lived with them all their lives. I've read Icelandic Sagas were men and women married the first time they met and stayed faithful forever.

What I'd really hate though, is being kept from marrying someone that I wanted to and spending the rest of my life dreaming about "what could have been", which was/is often the case with arranged marriage.

I pretty much agree with that but one should choose one's battles wisely.
Idealy, this would be the case . . . idealy.

There are causes in life that are worth dying for in the same way that there are causes that aren't worth fighting for.
True.

Competing with others doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a winner to benefit. It could also mean the loser benefits in some way if, say, winners were to contribute back.
I suppose so.

[humanist]

Why do you value your lungs, your heart, or your brain? Your organs are valuable because they enable you to realise your potential and achieve happiness. The same can be said of anything that is valuable and contributes to the good life: family, ethnic kin, civilisation, friendships, intelligence, law and order, modern medicine, a sophisticated culture and so on. The practical benefits of such things are obvious. That is why they are pursued.
There is not a sampling of reason in your argument. To begin with family does not contribute to the good life. Friendship, intelligence, order, medicine etc. are not in case harmed by culture mixing. A huge percentage of the people working in the NHS are non-whites.

The family is the means of cultural transmission. A proper upbringing will leave one loving the richness of their ethno-culture, as it what makes "races" (meaning ethnic groups) unique.
Based on this, would you say that cultural mixing is good or bad?

[Fade the Butcher]

sandee,

I didn't notice your response. I will get back to you soon.

[jcs]

Why should we value our culture? (http://infection.limagery.net/racialism/Race%20and%20Culture.html)
Good question.

Based on this, would you say that cultural mixing is good or bad?
Culture is the primary stressor keeping populations distinct. Cultural mixing = miscegenation, insofar as it leads to genetic mixing.

[Fade the Butcher]

There is not a sampling of reason in your argument.To begin with family does not contribute to the good life.

This is nonsense.

Friendship, intelligence, order, medicine etc. are not in case harmed by culture mixing.

On the contrary, demolishing cultural solidarity undermines individual liberty and opens the gateway to tyranny, as can already be seen in Europe and America where civil liberties have been curtailed in the name of protecting racial minorities.

A huge percentage of the people working in the NHS are non-whites.

These nonwhites introduce disorder into the political system.

Based on this, would you say that cultural mixing is good or bad?

I would say look at America.

[infoterror]

A society needs to be joined by a common goal. Values of the longest term sort are encoded in genetics. Like genetic groups need to stick together. Therefore, the presence of outsiders is contamination and must be stopped.

The only values that can oppose globalism are nationalist, traditional ones.

:cool:

[Roland]

Values of the longest term sort are encoded in genetics. Like genetic groups need to stick together. Therefore, the presence of outsiders is contamination and must be stopped.

How does this force compel an individual to herd with genetically like beings? I want to know exactly how this value is encoded, and exactly when the trigger is pulled so that this inherent necessity is acheived.

[Die]

People should value their culture and ethnicity if they do not value themselves above it. A genius of culture need never be 'concerned' with culture. :222:

[jcs]

People should value their culture and ethnicity if they do not value themselves above it. A genius of culture need never be 'concerned' with culture.
How many geniuses of culture were egomaniacs who neglected their roots in their culture and their contributions to culture? Most geniuses, from da Vinci to Goethe, felt compelled to contribute to the world around them.

Cultural contributions do not make a genius worthy--his genius does that--but a genius who has such an absurd ego, who knows nothing of humility, who cares nothing of the culture of which he is a product--such a genius may be a successful genius, but he is a failure of a person.

[Faustian Dreams]

Almost entirely unrelated to the original intentions of the thread:

How is it, that for the past thousand years people have been able to study other cultures without losing sight of their own? How is it, then, that many of today's academians and "intellectuals" face the possibility of immersing themselves and being swallowed by the foreign body they submit themselves to?

I hope that in the future there will be a resurgence of nationalistic sentiment, and that each culture swears to solidarity, but it leaves me wondering; as it has been in the past, and as it is something that bears threat with the possibility of its occurrence: how do we keep the ambassadors, the anthropologists, and those who might otherwise have their business lead them away from home from upholding their integrity and reverence for their kinsfolk?

To that extent, does the ideal even permit such behavior?

Gone are the days of nomadic invasions and sweeping changes to the demographic--they were, after all, the forebearers of the current trend of imperialism and multi-culturalism (in a more literal sense of the term). The waves made are greater now, and even the smallest ripples can be felt. In the times following whatever event which ultimately leads to the implosion of Modernity (a weakness that was inbuilt to begin with), it will be too late to conceive of an ideal existence.

We must start implementing and realizing those changes now...

[Fade the Butcher]

It seems obvious to me that there is some factor around today that wasn't significant in the past and that this is the key to understanding how we have come to be in the situation we are in today. What do you suppose that is?

[Jonathan]

It seems obvious to me that there is some factor around today that wasn't significant in the past and that this is the key to understanding how we have come to be in the situation we are in today. What do you suppose that is?

I would say that it is a combination of several inextricably linked factors rather than one. Materialism/Consumerism seems to be number one though (supposedly brought about by the Puritan work-ethic?).

[Sandee]

I'd say it's all down to conditioning. I remember reading the account of a European(British?) traveller who was in remote Africa/Australia a century ago(or there abouts) who recorded meeting a destitute tribe who still offered what they could (at their own grave expence) to the traveller and his company because their culture regarded altruism/hospitality in the highest regard.

I know that's highly unusual, but it happens.

True.

I'm only concerned with culture. Unlike some posters, I have no loyalties to my "race".

Okay.

Seriously though, I don't see how anyone who marries out of their race/culture is any less altruistic.

Same here.

*I also think that it is worth noting that when someone has a strong sense of "group loyalty" they tend not to be attracted to people from outside the group. This isn't always the case, of course, but it is a by-product of the kind of social-conditioning that goes on in a group context. "Birds of a feather, stick together" as the saying goes.

Indeed. People tend to favor what they are accustomed to. The comfort factor also plays a role. It all comes down to upbringing. An individual with strong cultural ties is least likely to marry interculturally.

We might need to make this more specific though. I know that in certain societies, the bride becomes a member of her husband's family. It may be the opposite in other societies. In the interest of social continuity, this may be for the best (not that it's necessarily any more or less altruistic over all).

Yes. In some societies, it is so. As it should be, IMO. In the case of intercultural marriages, a bride should adopt the culture of her husband.

Furthermore, it might do you good to look at it from the point of view of the children. Personally, I think it is in a child's best interests to grow up in a specific community, where that child has a definite identity, a benchmark etc.
Otherwise you may end up with alot of the problems we have today like youth suicide, identity crisis, depression, emotional instability, inferiority complex, helplessness etc

Agree. I am most concerned with the children. It should be the responsibility of the parents to see to it that their children grow up in an environment conducive to their well-being. This is why I believe that in the case of intercultural marriages, one partner should adopt the culture of the other. This will diminish the possibility of clashes.

For example, I mention in another thread just a few days ago that many of the most prominent figures in the Irish struggle for independance were not quite fully Irish in one way or another. Pádraig Pearse's (who led the 1916 rising) father was a Protestant, Englishman. Eamon de Valera's (leader of anti-Treaty Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil) father was a Spaniard/Cuban. Douglas Hyde's (Irish language enthousiast, Nationalist, and first President of Ireland) father was a Protestant Clergyman. It's just a theory, but I recone that those men felt like they had to compensate for their so-called lack of Irishness (conciously of sub-conciously).

Possibly.

1)As I've said, the kind of social conditioning which goes on in a community makes this a very unlikely occurance.

For most adherents, this is true.

2)I don't see how the person would necessarily have to sacrifice their love. Outsiders can survive with a community and develope a sense of belonging.

If they adopt the culture and ways of that community or at most find a happy compromise (which I strongly believe they should), then yes.

3)Even if an individual did have to give up their love, the good of the collective comes before the good of the individual. Sometimes people have to give up their lives for the community.

If marrying that person is detrimental to the good of the community, then yes.

On a more serious note, you might marry when you are dying so that you could have a child before you die.

You sure come up with interesting scenarios. :P

And some men too. And just as importantly, some men/women have been kept from marrying.

Even in arranged marriages, people can get picky.

Actually that's not as bad as you think. Most people get along with each other over time. Secondly, even if you didn't like the person, you still might have mutually benificial interests (raising a child for example).

It's only in the last while that the idea of "marrying for love and living happily ever after" has come about. If you read accounts of medieval nobles et al. for example, some of them were married at 12 to partners they had never met, and still lived with them all their lives. I've read Icelandic Sagas were men and women married the first time they met and stayed faithful forever.

Agreed that marriage is more than just 'love'. It comes with its responsibilities and duties as well. Any marriage, whether love or arranged, will last as long as both partners are willing to make it work.

What I'd really hate though, is being kept from marrying someone that I wanted to and spending the rest of my life dreaming about "what could have been", which was/is often the case with arranged marriage.

Indeed. I'd consider that being unfair to the person you marry. I don't like the idea of person A marrying person B and thinking of person C while being person B.

[Die]

Die:-People should value their culture and ethnicity if they do not value themselves above it. A genius of culture need never be 'concerned' with culture.


jcs:-"How many geniuses of culture were egomaniacs who neglected their roots in their culture and their contributions to culture? Most geniuses, from da Vinci to Goethe, felt compelled to contribute to the world around them.
Cultural contributions do not make a genius worthy--his genius does that--but a genius who has such an absurd ego, who knows nothing of humility, who cares nothing of the culture of which he is a product--such a genius may be a successful genius, but he is a failure of a person."

I don't doubt that every genius of culture may arouse a certain seriousness in themselves regarding their productions and pre-histories, but I can't say I've ever seen such a thing as needful---more a side-effect for which only a superhuman patience, like that of Goethes, is palliative.

I still regard the innocence of the artist as something precious.:)

[Jonathan]

In the case of intercultural marriages, a bride should adopt the culture of her husband.
I'm not sure whether it should be the bride who adopts the culture or the husband. In fact, I don't think it even matters much, just so long as one of them does, and that this is the general rule.

You sure come up with interesting scenarios. :P
Well it makes complete sense to me because my number 1 goal in life is to have children (goals 2, 3, 4, and so on, are mainly besed around my unborn children too :p).

Agreed that marriage is more than just 'love'. It comes with its responsibilities and duties as well. Any marriage, whether love or arranged, will last as long as both partners are willing to make it work.
sandee, will you marry me :D

J/K

Indeed. I'd consider that being unfair to the person you marry. I don't like the idea of person A marrying person B and thinking of person C while being person B.
I've seen it happen, it's not pritty. :(

Good God, I think this is the first time in my internet-using-life that I've actually had a discussion with someone and all the disagreements were ironed out!

Congratulations me and sandee! :)

[Sandee]

I'm not sure whether it should be the bride who adopts the culture or the husband. In fact, I don't think it even matters much, just so long as one of them does, and that this is the general rule.

That works too. It depends on a lot of other factors like in which community the couple prefers living, etc. The focus should be on whatever is more conducive to their well-being (long-term) and that of their kids i.e. when/if they choose to have kids.

Regarding my previous comment: The husband is generally portrayed as the head of the family (as it should be ; I'm not saying the wife can't be a contributing partner but in a family it's best to have a figure of authority) and hence my previous opinion (but that's my cultural upbringing!*)...

*In short, when you marry, you become a member of your husband's family and that means you have to follow his culture, traditions, ways, etc...

Well it makes complete sense to me because my number 1 goal in life is to have children (goals 2, 3, 4, and so on, are mainly besed around my unborn children too :p).

1: The kid will feel lonely.

2: Ideal number

3: Maximum.

I adore kids but when it comes to me, I'm never having too many. Kids require attention, care and above all, love. Those are the essentials but there is more to raising kids than just what I mentioned. You should be able to divide your time wisely and most importantly, be able to afford (financially) having so many kids. They have needs and wants too. I'd rather have a few and make sure they aren't neglected in any way... That's my personal opinion though. :)

sandee, will you marry me :D

J/K

I'll think about it. :p J/k.

I've seen it happen, it's not pritty. :(

Yep. The least you can hope for is that they focus on their duties towards each other (especially if they have kids). To me, Marriage is a solemn vow. Once you take it, you have to abide by it.

Good God, I think this is the first time in my internet-using-life that I've actually had a discussion with someone and all the disagreements were ironed out!

Congratulations me and sandee! :)

*Cheers*

[Jonathan]

That works too. It depends on a lot of other factors like in which community the couple prefers living, etc. The focus should be on whatever is more conducive to their well-being (long-term) and that of their kids i.e. when/if they choose to have kids.

Regarding my previous comment: The husband is generally portrayed as the head of the family (as it should be ; I'm not saying the wife can't be a contributing partner but in a family it's best to have a figure of authority) and hence my previous opinion (but that's my cultural upbringing!*)...

*In short, when you marry, you become a member of your husband's family and that means you have to follow his culture, traditions, ways, etc...
Agreed.



1: The kid will feel lonely.

2: Ideal number

3: Maximum.
I'll probably go for more than 3 (there's strength in numbers!).

This might sound terrible but - I want a son (at least). If I only get three daughters, then it's back to the bedroom.

I adore kids but when it comes to me, I'm never having too many. Kids require attention, care and above all, love. Those are the essentials but there is more to raising kids than just what I mentioned. You should be able to divide your time wisely and most importantly, be able to afford (financially) having so many kids. They have needs and wants too. I'd rather have a few and make sure they aren't neglected in any way... That's my personal opinion though. :)
True, though I think I'll manage with more than 3 even by those criteria.

I'll think about it. :p J/k.
When you type J/K does that mean that you're joking about thinking about it! as in, you wont think about it!:p

Yep. The least you can hope for is that they focus on their duties towards each other (especially if they have kids). To me, Marriage is a solemn vow. Once you take it, you have to abide by it.
Agreed.

*Cheers*
:)