NationStates Jolt Archive

Soliciting Suggestions Sirs...

-------------------------------
Original idea by Mikitivity
Verbage by Boogidyloo
-------------------------------


Title-UN Declaration on Cultural Diversity

Category-Human Rights

Description-This Declaration aims to preserve cultural diversity as a living, and thus renewable treasure that must not be perceived as being unchanging heritage but as a process held to be vital for the survival of humanity.

Affirming, that culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, as defined by that society or social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs,

Emphasizing, that respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and cooperation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding are among the best provisions for international peace and security,

Aspiring to, greater solidarity on the basis of recognition of cultural diversity, of awareness of the unity of humankind, and of the development of intercultural exchanges,

Aware, of our responsibility to ensure the preservation and promotion of the fruitful diversity of cultures,

Proclaims the following principles and adopts the present Declaration:

Article 1-Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind. As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations.

Article 2-The defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperitive, inseperable from respect for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights of persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples. No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by United Nations Resolution, nor to limit their scope.

How thoroughly worthless...

How thoroughly worthless...

Elaborate.

Do I really need to? It does *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING*

It is worthless.

It also is anti-evolutionary. We should not bring the internet to the Pygmies for fear that it will westernize them and destroy their culture... thereby violating this proposal ?

Please..... Keep "feel good" yet "thought poorly" laws to your own nation

kthnks

How thoroughly worthless...

Elaborate.

I will:

- it fails to create an arbitrary UN committee of the week,
- it doesn't impose a new tax on nations,
- it doesn't give the money generated by this tax to some fluffy sexy feel good cause,
- it is more than 10 lines long,
- it actually *gasp* doesn't ENFORCE UN rule over UN members.

OK, I'm being sarcastic with the above. All of these are reasons to vote down poorly worded resolutions. This proposal ... well I can't shake this feeling that I've seen this declaration somewhere else before ... *cough* like online *cough*. ;)

Here is the point behind the resolution. Recent UN resolutions have been worded in such a way as to promote or reward only one type of society. Take the Education resolution. It really didn't address the right of home schooling.

While it would be impossible to list all of possible things a UN resolution might ignore (thus this is not a fault of the Educational or Blood Bank resolutions), it couldn't hurt for the UN to reaffirm that in addition to trying to save people's lives and giving them a better education, that it also acknowledges that they have a right to maintain a cultural identity.

In the 1970s and 1980s the costs of desalination plants was so expensive that only a few arid nations could afford to operate the plants. As the populations of these desert nations grew, they were faced with a choice on where to get additional water resources: (1) building new plants, (2) researching new technologies to improve the efficency of existing plants, or (3) find new sources of water.

Now, for some socities, the cheapest option was to import water or introduce water reuse. However, for religious reasons, some countries refused to treat human waste water, so instead focused on options 1 and 2.

In time water filtration processes (largely developed by nations that simply did not want to find new sources of water not for economic, but religious reasons) decreased in cost, to such a point that now the choices of options 1, 2, or 3 send many of our governments to invest in technologies like membrane filtering.

This is a crude example of how one cultural / unique way of looking at a very specific problem yielded benefits that another cultural would not have invested the time in solving.

And the lesson to be learned is that by being unique or different, that our ability to adapt to problems is greater with diversity than without.

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations

10kMichael

Do I really need to? It does *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING*

It encourages member nations to observe a particular set of standards when making policy decisions relevant to the subject. It sets a benchmark for member nations to refer to on an as needed basis. This is exactly the type of mechanism that is necessary to exact social change. A UN Resolution does not have to make something legal/illegal or perform a physically identifiable action in order to produce an outcome.

Do I really need to? It does *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING*

It encourages member nations to observe a particular set of standards when making policy decisions relevant to the subject. It sets a benchmark for member nations to refer to on an as needed basis. This is exactly the type of mechanism that is necessary to exact social change. A UN Resolution does not have to make something legal/illegal or perform a physically identifiable action in order to produce an outcome.

No, it does absolutely nothing except state in some prettied-up way how you think cultural diversity is important.

Where is the POINT??!?? I can't find it, because, well, there is none.

Do I really need to? It does *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING*

Ya!
Wir müssen Gesetze bilden!
Wir benötigen mehr Ausschüsse.
Wir benötigen mehr Produkte.

This proposal ... well I can't shake this feeling that I've seen this declaration somewhere else before ... *cough* like online *cough*. ;)

And I freely admit(ted) it too. :D

No, it does absolutely nothing except state in some prettied-up way how you think cultural diversity is important.

Yes! That's it exactly! It states in "some prettied-up way"(read-appropriate legal phrasing and correct spelling and grammar) that the UN thinks that cultural diversity is important. That is exactly what it does.

Diversity breeds animosity. Animosity breeds strife. Strife within a nation breeds weakness.

A modern nation cannot afford to maintain seperate cultural identies among its people. They must conform or the nation cannot use them. Look at Japan for example (RL). They have a near homogenous society and are one of the most advanced, richest countries on the globe. Then look to many African Countries (such as Rwanda) with distinct Ethnic groups. Nothing but violence and bloodshed.

This proposal ... well I can't shake this feeling that I've seen this declaration somewhere else before ... *cough* like online *cough*. ;)

And I freely admit(ted) it too. :D

Hey, I was under the impression that portions were lifted from UNESCO. ;)

Though part of the idea is to justify doing what we do, I'm certain that most of the UN members understand the purpose is noble and doesn't hurt a thing. If the only comments aren't constructive, I'd say you've done an excellent job!

10k

Diversity breeds animosity. Animosity breeds strife. Strife within a nation breeds weakness.

A modern nation cannot afford to maintain seperate cultural identies among its people. They must conform or the nation cannot use them. Look at Japan for example (RL). They have a near homogenous society and are one of the most advanced, richest countries on the globe. Then look to many African Countries (such as Rwanda) with distinct Ethnic groups. Nothing but violence and bloodshed.

Look at the United States of America, where all those Polish-American people run around and kill all those German-American and Italian-American people. Yup, you're sure standing on solid ground there. It happens like all the freakn time.

Violence happens when resources are limited. Ethnic violence is usually fueled by ignorance and fear. The first step to stopping it, isn't to FORCE people into some monoculture ....

Excuse me, I'm getting a phone call from Bill Gates ...

*talks to Gates*

I reverse my position. Monoculture is good. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. It is useless to resist. You are beaten. Join me and help me end this destructive conflict. Together we can bring ORDER to the universe!

*wakes up*


10kMichael

Diversity breeds animosity. Animosity breeds strife. Strife within a nation breeds weakness.

Intolerance of diversity breeds animosity.

Look at Japan for example (RL). They have a near homogenous society and are one of the most advanced, richest countries on the globe. Then look to many African Countries (such as Rwanda) with distinct Ethnic groups. Nothing but violence and bloodshed.

[OOC-Japan is not a homogenous culture. There is a strong emphasis placed on traditional Japanese culture and its value. Because the line between modern Japanese culture and traditional Japanese culture (which are two very different things) is considered fluid and equal value is given to both, they have synergy with each other, making a better whole. If cultural diversity were not valued in Japan, the traditional aspects of that culture would be long gone. And it is perfectly clear that intolerance of other cultures is what is responsible for incidences of ethnic cleansing. A culture that is tolerates its neighbors does not try to destroy them.

DP

This proposal ... well I can't shake this feeling that I've seen this declaration somewhere else before ... *cough* like online *cough*. ;)

And I freely admit(ted) it too. :D

Hey, I was under the impression that portions were lifted from UNESCO. ;)

10k

Hmmm, that does sound vaugely familiar. And there was something about Paris. And 2001. (Ahh, Paris in winter...)

I am reminded of an author, Jared Diamond, in his book The Third Chimpanzee, regarding the tribes of New Guinea being discovered after millienia of isolation from each other in the valleys of the high mountains there. Many diverse cultures, on the same island, each representing a unique perspective of solving human dilemmas, creating new languages, inventing new techniques.

Now, they are assimilating, to a degree. Helicopters and aricraft make once nigh impossible barriers traversible. The old ways are being lost to new ways that seem better, because they are linked to a people who seem at leisure.

And who is to say they are wrong?

However, we should not look upon other cultures as different but as extensions of the human condition, as road maps of possibilities, what was tried, what resulted, why it faded with time and what will be kept with a new contact with the world.

Our humble nation is proud to say that we will look to the future someday. It may be that the conditions of human habitation will change with the passage of years. We may find ourselves soon acclimating to homes made in the deep of oceans, or in the void of space, in the icy land of Antarctica or even adapting to the advent of Global Warming. All these could necessitate a shift in how we live and how we deal with each other. It is hubris to think that our culture will be the only one to survive such transitions unchanged.

We feel it is valid question to make a committment to study the diversity of human nature, human culture and human differences. It is a map to ourselves, and to what we may become. To this end, our nation will begin taking upon itself to commission a historical overview of all cultures within our nation, and begin a living history of our nation, from it's inception of.... this week, to what we may become in the future.

Our nation will give it's support to this proposal.

No, it does absolutely nothing except state in some prettied-up way how you think cultural diversity is important.

Yes! That's it exactly! It states in "some prettied-up way"(read-appropriate legal phrasing and correct spelling and grammar) that the UN thinks that cultural diversity is important. That is exactly what it does.

I apologize for being cynical, but I fail to see the productivity in this. Because it *does* nothing, it is simply cluttering the legislative process for matters that are of real importance. The proposal doesn't attempt to change anything. It just states ideals, therefore it is not so much a proposal. I don't feel that it is productive or even necessarily good to bring this to a vote. If this proposal created _incentives_ to preserve diversity (without infringing upon freedom), I would consider bringing this proposal to vote a good thing. Since it does not, I believe this is best left for individuals to decide on their own.

Even _if_ the proposal was to create a financial infrastructure for investigating diversity and finding ways to promote it (if not actually promote it), I still find the productivity of such a bureaucracy somewhat dubious. Cultures will always remain diverse. Faster and more effective communication networks will not create a mono-culture. Ideas simply transfer and diverge at a faster pace.

This proposal calls for no definitive action; gives no enforceable guidelines, offers no observable criteria.

It is comparable to those letters to the editor that say "We view with alarm" or "We heartily endorse"; the writers may feel good about taking an ethical stance, but nothing is accomplished.

This proposal calls for no definitive action; gives no enforceable guidelines, offers no observable criteria.

It is comparable to those letters to the editor that say "We view with alarm" or "We heartily endorse"; the writers may feel good about taking an ethical stance, but nothing is accomplished.

This proposal calls for no definitive action; gives no enforceable guidelines, offers no observable criteria.

Sure. But what's wrong with that? Every so often we need airy statements of principle - they're not just fluff, they help to guide us when it's time to get our hands dirty with the nuts and bolts of policy. What's the UN for? What are we trying to work towards? What do we hold dear? Where, if anywhere, do we set the limits of our power? This sort of thing's more valuable than it may appear.

Comrade Jameson
Delegate for Praxis

Several ligitimate arguements have already been presented as to why this proposal does indeed *do* something. The last statement I am going to make on that subject is this; This is a societal change issue. Societal change cannot be mandated. It cannot be enforced. The only way to exact social change is through example setting and peer pressure. The UN sets an example for member nations, which in turn, through public policy, set an example for their populace. This is the only way to effect change of this nature. Sociology and Cultural Anthropology 101.

If someone has a legitimate arguement at to why a proposal of this specific nature will have no effect, I will be more than willing to discuss the subject. However, any more posts that simply say "but it doesn't do anything" will simply be ignored as "sound and fury, signifying nothing". Or meaningless masturbatory flaming. You pick.

I would also like to note that "the proof is in the pudding". The representative of Anarchnophpolis has stated that the proposal has prompted his government to "commission a historical overview of the cultures within our nation".

And my thanks to East Hackney for being much more eloquent and diplomatic this morning than I.

We thoroughly endorse the principles behind this.

And it does do something: it states that you can't use cultural diversity as an excuse to avoid basic UN-granted rights. Which would be important for the implementation of many existing UN resolutions; some cultures might not regard FGM as torture, but this document would add to the strength of a case against it while reaffirming that we're not out to assimilate everybody.

And it's important to state principles. We are fully behind this proposal.

If someone has a legitimate arguement at to why a proposal of this specific nature will have no effect, I will be more than willing to discuss the subject. However, any more posts that simply say "but it doesn't do anything" will simply be ignored as "sound and fury, signifying nothing". Or meaningless masturbatory flaming. You pick.

We Anarchnophists endorse this line of thought, and wish to extend it slightly. Many resolutions, not all on the international level, but on the much more local level, are simply statements of endorsement. They don't mean anything, because they don't do anything, but they would mean something if you do something. If I wrote a resolution tomorrow, suggesting that puppies should be loved, it would be a simple statement, but without a specific action behind it, it is up to the individual states, nations and confederations to enact some form of it, should it become law. One nation may put funds into animal adoption, while another may start breeding programs for better health.

If anything, resolutions that do not order specific actions are for the best , as they allow the most freedom to implement by separate actors. If you suggest that it "does nothing" you are really saying either "I can't think of anything that loves puppies" or "I don't care about loving puppies". If you disagree with cultural diversity, then explain why, but don't condemn it for not being specific.

Maybe,

In recognising the possibility of a need of beneficial change in society,

We are in fact affirming such a need.

And so should enact such a proposal,

If only to increase the opportunity for said beneficial change.

After all is not the mandate of the U.N. to make the world a better place?

Or maybe I'm being too idealistic. :wink:

* (Shrugs)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.