Separate Cultures In A Pluralistic Society
This represents the third installment in a multi-part series called "Culture."
In the next few weeks, we will examining the many aspects of this subject;
Including what it means to be Black in a pluralistic society. Enjoy
National and cultural traits make people feel the same way about many things like area, rights, titles, or legal shares in things but (as said previously in previous articles)these sentiments are here, primarily, because the members of these said societies are members of the same ethnicity: So what happens, when you have members in a pluralistic society that originate from different ethnicities? In other words, what happens when you live in one of those types of pluralistic societies, but come from a people of who are different from its founding fathers?
I would guess, it would depend on whose society it is, and how far the society will go towards providing justice and equality for all its' additional members; something a pluralistic society is supposedly known for. Pluralism represents a situation wherein people of different social classes, religions, races, etc., are brought together in a society but continue to have their different traditions and interests. America is one such society. America's decree towards pluralism is poetically written upon a plaque which rests on the podium which supports the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
The Statue of Liberty is the symbol of freedom for the American citizens. The sonnet is a promise towards a brighter future for the world's rejected. It is an offer for all those seeking refuge, to come together a form a society; a society which is supposedly better than the one they came from. That's quite a promise, isn't it?
It is quite natural, however, for interests to change from one social, political, economic or ethnic group to another. Of course, one's personal interests may vary from various group interests as well. Each group expresses their own particular preponderance for issues that concern their people, their own priorities; Their interests. It is hard for one people to be everything for everybody. Somebody's bound to get let down.
So what would happen if your group were the group that is in the driver's seat? You know, the ruling class or dominant culture in American Society; one the Founding fathers who wrote the laws which govern this society. The kind of people who think the same way the Constitution of the United States was designed, or the colonist or pilgrims who started this country. How do you think things would be for others who joined your nation?
Surely you can see the benefit: Being a member of the larger dominate society--that part of a pluralistic society which preside over all the other elements which belong to that nation. E Pluribus Unum. Your group would be the group that other elements would be obligated to protect and serve its needs; like soldiers in the military protect "their brass."
And how about the elements which occupy the lower rungs of society? What would be their motivations? Where would their allegiances lie? What would spur them on to continue being a citizen? What would happen if the group you're in, is not in the position to have a legitimate say the decision-making process?
I guess, if you wanted to remain part of a pluralistic society but you weren't part of the ruling class, you would have to take whatever the society offers. And that's all right, as long as the society considers what some of your people's basic interests are. Either that or you will have to use every possible means at your disposal, to bring about reform. . . The other option would be for you to take steps to form an environment of your own.
And while we're on the topic of reformation, can anybody please explain to me how a group, such as women in this country, be considered minority, when they outnumber men approximately four to one? I have the suspicion that this minority has nothing to do with numbers; I consider, it has to do with more of what the dominant culture in a so-called pluralistic society thinks is important (or Major), as opposed to those things which are not so important to them. And it is precisely the type of thinking (majority/minority considerations), which needs to be modified.
And while we're on the topic of reformation, can anybody please explain to me how a group, such as women in this country, be considered minority, when they outnumber men approximately four to one? I have the suspicion that this minority has nothing to do with numbers; I consider, it has to do with more of what the dominant culture in a so-called pluralistic society thinks is important (or Major), as opposed to those things which are not so important to them. And it is precisely the type of thinking (majority/minority considerations), which needs to be modified.
_______
When a nation is made up of one ethnic group, there are elements which serve to bind the nation, far above any of the other means; notably, being members of the same stock of people, and having similar or the same genetic, cultural, and character traits shared between them.
Traits are inherited characteristics of a group of people, or similar tendencies between a group of the same people: Their inclinations; their proclivities in thought. In other words, factors based upon the genetic growth of families of within the same stock of people. Genetic traits are the factors inherited by the offsprings from both of the parents within such a society, mainly by their family's lineage, accompanied by factors acquired indirectly by these parents through their experiences within communal living. Cultural traits refer to those factors aimed towards the betterment or refinement of human beings within such a society, by its society-at-large; especially through means of education and tradition. Character traits are the individual personal development of such genetic traits into various combinations--as well as how each combination relates or interacts to its environment. This relationship is achieved by how this person acquires and using things (aka assimilation), as well as how this person relates to self and others (socialization). The Character traits are acquired by either passively or assertively waiting for others to provide him or her with things they that they need, or presenting oneself, as is (without pretense). It is also done by asserting one's freedom to engage, relate or interact with others, while accepting the responsibility for all their actions within those experiences.
Character traits are often the major motivating factors in comprising customs; which, in turn, form the basis of many traditions and beliefs. Through the interaction between man and his environment among his people, ways are struck, which makes for better harmonious interaction and cooperation. These ways comprise customary ways of acting. Over time, these acts become traditional ways of behaving, based upon beliefs upheld by the people. Some of these beliefs may be based upon acts that brought about consistent results, and therefore believed in; and others based upon a personal connection with the source in which all come from--the creator. It is easier to have these experiences with people of the same stock, than it is with people of different ethnicity.
When these forces are applied to a group of people, it becomes the way of those people. Their beliefs are often birthed from common ideas, held by their ancestors, or they may be birthed from common feelings (or common superstitions), concerning their lore of God or the gods which folks held sacred (concerning consciousness being incarnated into physical form). Their curiosities often lead to religion and/or the pursuit of knowledge and the sciences. Although I would caution you to make a distinction between those things you believe because you feel that way, and those things which you subscribe to based on what you know is true. They often carry you into two different directions. . .
Remember, it is the family that give birth to both the individual, the clan and the tribe (or tribes). Culture is an outgrowth of the relationship between a man, woman and child with other men, women and children of the same stock of people. The family's gift to society is its children. Both the family and society raise its children; and each child's efforts either raises or threatens the society. The Code instilled in each person regulates the conduct of each member of the family, tribe and clan! Therefore, the similarities and differences in thinking, relating, and common interests regulate conduct between families, clans, or other tribes. And it is this practice that regulate order between members, and by this, that justice is served to those who violate it. If you are from this group, it is easier to relate, if you are not--it can be harder to relate.
When traits are working within society, very few things need much elaboration, because most of the ideology originates from a commonality in thinking. There is no outside thinking (although new ideas may spring forth from previous concepts). When another society is brought into a pluralistic cultural confine, the immediate question that arises is: Are the other people emerged into enough similar experiences to fit into our society-at-large? And if not, are they anywhere-near the type of relationships capable of such an evolution? In other words, are these people said people of that ability and capable of the type of civil behavior that can lead to harmonious cohabitation?
If the answer is yes, then the collaboration and social equality is fine, if not, it is often fraught with danger.
Have you ever had a conversation with someone, and suddenly find yourself not being on the same page with them, which breaks out into heated disagreement? Sometimes the issue is differences in perspective, values and/or priorities. Other times, it may be a level of maturity type of thing. Sometimes, the level and state of mind becomes questionable. Then again, it could be cultural differences at play here--or differences in cultural mind state or spiritual evolution--aka clash in cultures.
For example, try convincing a street hustler, who makes more money in a week than you make in a month, that he should not sell drugs. [Most that do sell have already accepted the risks.] Or pointing out how egotistical or solipsistic it is, for a man or woman who is lacking in fidelity, to have unprotected sex with an outside person--much less convincing this person how that action puts the whole family at risk. How about the debates that monogamous people have with polygynous people? Or try persuading the youth that paying money for child support is not the only measure of fatherhood or motherhood, but co-parenting and putting time in with your children is. And try convincing a bipolar person, that they should take some responsibility for creating the circumstances confronting them.
No doubt, you will quickly see that unless providence, experience, and time play their parts, these people will have great difficulty seeing your point of view or consider changing their ways; and in the case of the morally destitute, the issue becomes literally impossible. Not all nations are in the same state of cultural evolution; neither are all people civilized rational beings. When you are worlds apart, you have nothing in common: Stop trying to make synapses where synapses between nerves does not exist.
Some people will have to "catch up" with society--and usually what serves as catalysts, are peer group pressure and older family members--for people who want it. The choice belongs to each individual. If they want to belong, then they will do what it takes. Just take all the nationalities that exist here as American citizens. They are striving so hard for citizenship. They move into the areas where the descendants of the European colonist live. They go to the same schools as the Whites and go to many of the area parties, trying to fit in, but the White American only let them in but so far. He preserves the best part and keeps others away from his true social equality. Only other Whites from similar origins can have that.
Character traits are often the major motivating factors in comprising customs; which, in turn, form the basis of many traditions and beliefs. Through the interaction between man and his environment among his people, ways are struck, which makes for better harmonious interaction and cooperation. These ways comprise customary ways of acting. Over time, these acts become traditional ways of behaving, based upon beliefs upheld by the people. Some of these beliefs may be based upon acts that brought about consistent results, and therefore believed in; and others based upon a personal connection with the source in which all come from--the creator. It is easier to have these experiences with people of the same stock, than it is with people of different ethnicity.
When these forces are applied to a group of people, it becomes the way of those people. Their beliefs are often birthed from common ideas, held by their ancestors, or they may be birthed from common feelings (or common superstitions), concerning their lore of God or the gods which folks held sacred (concerning consciousness being incarnated into physical form). Their curiosities often lead to religion and/or the pursuit of knowledge and the sciences. Although I would caution you to make a distinction between those things you believe because you feel that way, and those things which you subscribe to based on what you know is true. They often carry you into two different directions. . .
Remember, it is the family that give birth to both the individual, the clan and the tribe (or tribes). Culture is an outgrowth of the relationship between a man, woman and child with other men, women and children of the same stock of people. The family's gift to society is its children. Both the family and society raise its children; and each child's efforts either raises or threatens the society. The Code instilled in each person regulates the conduct of each member of the family, tribe and clan! Therefore, the similarities and differences in thinking, relating, and common interests regulate conduct between families, clans, or other tribes. And it is this practice that regulate order between members, and by this, that justice is served to those who violate it. If you are from this group, it is easier to relate, if you are not--it can be harder to relate.
When traits are working within society, very few things need much elaboration, because most of the ideology originates from a commonality in thinking. There is no outside thinking (although new ideas may spring forth from previous concepts). When another society is brought into a pluralistic cultural confine, the immediate question that arises is: Are the other people emerged into enough similar experiences to fit into our society-at-large? And if not, are they anywhere-near the type of relationships capable of such an evolution? In other words, are these people said people of that ability and capable of the type of civil behavior that can lead to harmonious cohabitation?
If the answer is yes, then the collaboration and social equality is fine, if not, it is often fraught with danger.
Have you ever had a conversation with someone, and suddenly find yourself not being on the same page with them, which breaks out into heated disagreement? Sometimes the issue is differences in perspective, values and/or priorities. Other times, it may be a level of maturity type of thing. Sometimes, the level and state of mind becomes questionable. Then again, it could be cultural differences at play here--or differences in cultural mind state or spiritual evolution--aka clash in cultures.
For example, try convincing a street hustler, who makes more money in a week than you make in a month, that he should not sell drugs. [Most that do sell have already accepted the risks.] Or pointing out how egotistical or solipsistic it is, for a man or woman who is lacking in fidelity, to have unprotected sex with an outside person--much less convincing this person how that action puts the whole family at risk. How about the debates that monogamous people have with polygynous people? Or try persuading the youth that paying money for child support is not the only measure of fatherhood or motherhood, but co-parenting and putting time in with your children is. And try convincing a bipolar person, that they should take some responsibility for creating the circumstances confronting them.
No doubt, you will quickly see that unless providence, experience, and time play their parts, these people will have great difficulty seeing your point of view or consider changing their ways; and in the case of the morally destitute, the issue becomes literally impossible. Not all nations are in the same state of cultural evolution; neither are all people civilized rational beings. When you are worlds apart, you have nothing in common: Stop trying to make synapses where synapses between nerves does not exist.
Some people will have to "catch up" with society--and usually what serves as catalysts, are peer group pressure and older family members--for people who want it. The choice belongs to each individual. If they want to belong, then they will do what it takes. Just take all the nationalities that exist here as American citizens. They are striving so hard for citizenship. They move into the areas where the descendants of the European colonist live. They go to the same schools as the Whites and go to many of the area parties, trying to fit in, but the White American only let them in but so far. He preserves the best part and keeps others away from his true social equality. Only other Whites from similar origins can have that.
The "child" in an adult person (aka child-like behavior) never really matures or leaves on its own; it must be driven out. And in the case of the mentally ill--their immature, inappropriate behavior must be persuaded through counseling/therapy and/or drugs. Now when pressure is from your people, it is called evolution, but when it comes from the pluralistic element--the conformation may very easily be viewed as a "white-wash" or "sell-out."
White washing is another form of "wannabe-ism," while a sell-out is the worst form of opportunism. Needless to say, the balance between conforming and cultural integrity is a very delicate and very important to maintain, while living in a pluralistic society. It may be wise and lucrative to advance within American Society, just don't lose yourself, your integrity, or your manhood and womanhood in the process. Living among the ruling class and following their ordinances, is not the same as being part of their society; as I am sure the Cosbys, Windfreys, the Jacksons, Michael Jordans, Mike Tysons, Denzel Washingtons, Will Smiths and Jada Pinketts, O.J. Simpsons, Tiger Woods, JayZ and Beyounces can attest.
It is as though, there's a certain "manifest destiny" amongst various families, tribes, and communities of every type of people. This seems only feasible--since all that is good and most that is bad, can be traced back to the culture which was produced by the people; The sum total of which are the outgrowth of generations of a given people's considerations and behaviors.
Most people consider that genes play a part in the physical makeup of species/ethnicities--but not emotional or mental disposition--but this is not true. As said earlier, inclinations, tendencies and proclivities (a.k.a., countenance) are inherited characteristics through genetics interacting with environment. Therefore , the difference in genetics equals a difference in thinking/considerations: not necessarily for greater or lesser--but in different ways.
The existence of traditions, customs and beliefs also indicate similarities in thinking patterns and values amongst the same or similar people; such as members of a race or descendant tribes (like Koreans or Nipponese [Japanese]).
Culture is the personality of the people. Culture is the people's perception on the world.
So what happens in multi-plural, multi-cultural societies? Will the rules of that society determined by consensus, or is there one dominant culture, with the rest serving as sub-cultures within that society?
In the case of America, there is one ruling class and one dominant culture (white colonists who were former Europeans), with a so-called tolerance for other cultures, traditions, and religions. Yet, even though we have French speaking people to our Canadian north and Spanish speaking to Mexican south, we still only speak English in America--while showing no tolerance for amalgamations in our borderline states. Within multi-cultural societies there seems to be not enough work done to ensure equal considerations for those sub-cultures which exist within the dominant culture framework.
In the case of America, there is one ruling class and one dominant culture (white colonists who were former Europeans), with a so-called tolerance for other cultures, traditions, and religions. Yet, even though we have French speaking people to our Canadian north and Spanish speaking to Mexican south, we still only speak English in America--while showing no tolerance for amalgamations in our borderline states. Within multi-cultural societies there seems to be not enough work done to ensure equal considerations for those sub-cultures which exist within the dominant culture framework.
In the United States, the people known as colonists established this country by taking the land from the native Americans (through near genocide of said natives). It was the consensus of all the Whites who participated in those wars, to steal the land from the natives. I'm sure it wasn't everyone, because you'll never get a hundred percent of the people to agree on any issue; but surely it wasn't enough Whites to make a difference about taking the land away from the same people who helped them survive the winter a year before. These actions were conceived by them, under a policy that Europeans called "Expansionism." Check it out in the dictionary and "google" it.
You must remember (as the above examples suggests), not all peoples act friendly, or work in harmony with the people they come in contact with. Throughout world chronological recordings, many of the encounters with Whites have been adversarial, some exploitative, and some even genocidal--when it comes to the world's native peoples. And there's enough evidence to suggest, that despite our efforts towards freedom, Blacks in America still remain a subservient class to another group of people who designed a different place for us in their world. Americans are not doing things together for the common good, the other sub-cultures are making things for the dominate culture's disposal because most cultures want to be included.
Patriotism supranational pluralism is a situation in which people of different social classes, religions, races, etc., are together in a society but continue to have their different traditions and interests: the belief that people of different social classes, religions, races, etc., should live together in a society.
Clearly, the meeting between the native American and the European, is illustrative of how the European will behave, when they come in contact with non-European people. We have seen that America has a ruling class and one dominate culture, while claiming this form of pluralism. Yet, the trust is there on the part of other cultures or societies--to participate in a pluralistic civilization like the United States, hoping to find liberty and justice for all.
A lot can be learned from how the Europeans secured American from the natives. Once the land was obtained by the colonists--leadership, hierarchy, and governments became natural outgrowths--and ironically, the native Americans was not included in this "party."
Remember, there were more than one European society that came to America, for the purpose of colonization. It was the English who eliminated most of the other Europeans, in the quest to make America a British colony. The natives originally viewed the British as visitors and/or traders, but the Europeans planned to occupy the area and subdue the natives--which they viewed as "savages."
To colonize means to settle. A colony is a body of people living in a new territory, but retaining ties with the parent state. This is the bottom line of why the English colonists did not include the natives into the American fabric--they came to take their land for England--to make it British territory. Forts were built as a means of protection for their forceful acquisition and occupation. This act alone, confirms that the trust the natives had for the White man was not mutual. While the native gave the White man a place to stay in his world, the Whites built forts to lock him out of his.
Surely European people of that day had a different opinion about the people they came in contact with; it was definitely not one of respect, appreciation, or proper humanity. Behaviors which were common became customary and over time traditional. Tradition is a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time.
With these kind of practices in place, it should be clear to those of us who have our people's best interests at heart, to serve our own interests directly--and not rely on others factors of government to serve them. Otherwise we will suddenly find things ear-marked for us, going to people with other interests.
Peace and Blessings Folks,
C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers
