NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Leaders of all nations,

most of you know the social problems that occur by Migration and globalization. It's not easy to integrate the conservation of cultural originality and a sensible structure of a modern, pluralistic society. There are thousands of Issues to talk and care about, for example
- language
- arts
- education
- international networks
- the power of international corporations

which more or less directly have got an important concern for cultural identity. It's time to found international networks to confirm our gouvernment's (and not the corporation's and media's) role in dealing with this problems, to find rules for an useful cultural exchange and to prevent cultural decline in our nations.

Respectfully:

A.W., delegate of the Althing, gouverning institution of the U.S.of the Althing of Trielh

Define what a decline in culture would be and I will listen to you further :}

Culture changes as people move in and out. Clinging to a culture in the face of the modern imperitive to change is just an excuse to be xenaphobic.

Alright, lets see the proposal?

*puzzled suspicious look*
╗_╗

we has culture?

╗_╗
what's culture?

What cultural decline is? Celebrating culture as an "event", or better: To call events of collective consumption of superficial art, literature and movies "cultural".
It's a trivial statement to say that modern society is getting more and more complex. But because of this increasing complexity, enriched by lots of multilateral influences, the modern (especially western) individual is forced to construct incoherent and syncretistic philosophy of life. But this individualistic philosophies are not suitable to solve real individual and social problems. Modern societies need a pubilc cultural forum, which is:

- protected from medial and economical influence (and oppression)
- initiated by gouvernment programs to save cultural originality.

I've got a proposal for saving the originality of Language, similar to the programs of the real world Iceland and France in "NationStates-Style" as a first step. Would be great if some of you could support my voice by endorsing me, my country is not very huge yet and it'll take a few days more to make me become the delegate of IFUFRUCOFRIA, a region recently found by a few friends of mine.

Bye, The Althing

Well, I've read both your posts now, and I'm reminded of the Mission Statement of most corporations and non-profits - lots of words essentially adding up to "null".

Post your resolution, and you'll have plenty of time to revise it while you're waiting for endorsements (which we can't help you with unless we join your region).

What cultural decline is? Celebrating culture as an "event", or better: To call events of collective consumption of superficial art, literature and movies "cultural".


So you would agree culture is not something that can be easily defined? That specific events and so forth are not "culture"?

How would you set about saving it then?


It's a trivial statement to say that modern society is getting more and more complex.


But a true one. Two, three thousand years ago humans never mixed with elves and dwarfs in my country, and so it wasn't necessary for them to understand each other. Now it's a common thing, and humans have adapted elven and dwarven "culture" in to human "culture". If humanity tried to keep it's culture "pure" then our society would be stuck where it was three thousand years ago. I am all for the changes in it, and don't consider it declining.


But because of this increasing complexity, enriched by lots of multilateral influences, the modern (especially western) individual is forced to construct incoherent and syncretistic philosophy of life.


Things change. Every time you learn something knew you adapt yourself to it. Or you become inflexible and never change, making it almost impossible to fit in to the world.


But this individualistic philosophies are not suitable to solve real individual and social problems.


Why? Sometimes single people can change the world, and if they are forced in to a single social philosophy then no new thought will ever happen.


Modern societies need a pubilc cultural forum, which is:

- protected from medial and economical influence (and oppression)
- initiated by gouvernment programs to save cultural originality.


If you have to set about saving your culture, then it is probably not worth saving since time is moving on from it.


I've got a proposal for saving the originality of Language, similar to the programs of the real world Iceland and France in "NationStates-Style" as a first step. Would be great if some of you could support my voice by endorsing me, my country is not very huge yet and it'll take a few days more to make me become the delegate of IFUFRUCOFRIA, a region recently found by a few friends of mine.

Bye, The Althing

Language changes also. Enforcing a single, "pre-defined" language on a nation is tantamount to discrimination. TilEnca has several languages, and each one is changing by including elements from other languages. Even the most acient of the languages - Aslan - has changed in the years due to the influences of the changing world.

Asking the UN to enforce "culture" on it's members is wrong - it will freeze the societys in time and nothing new will ever happen.

I am happy for every nation who wants to to maintain it's own culture, but TilEnca is proud of the way the years have changed us. Plus if we kept the culture we lived in we would still be under the thumb of a corrupt and evil Church, so it's probably a good thing that we have a whole new way of life :]

At first: Thank you all for your replies, every conflict can become a good and inspiring one.

You're right to criticize my lack of an easy definition of "culture" - I agree with you that it's difficult to define, what culture is. The previous answer to my Proposal was not bad, too. You both are right: Culture is a PROCESS. A process od development and changes.

But you both get superficial when you start criticizing the most important of my arguments: The superficial, syncretistic modern philosophies of life. Didn't you ever think about the possibility that even a whole dynamical system can get into decline and damage if a few of it's most important parameters are in a process of decline themselves? That the possibilities of further development and - if you want - evolution do not increase, but decrease by losing it's strongest "engines"? And thats exactly what happens in modern societies. A process of a worthy, social development depends on a collective awareness of historical, philosophical and - all in all - cultural implications. But this components of knowledge, arts, philosophy, ethics, whatever, are uprooted in the modern society. And so the possibilities of a development of a spiritually and mentally healthy and intelligent culture on the fundament of humanity is uprooted itself:
Just because the people consume this components, they don't think about it.
And this problem - which surely always existed in history - increases more and more, in the worst case in the way I described above - take a look at the chaos theory!

To Frisbeeteria: That's just undignified. Why don't you discuss first and then get unobjective, when you're sure that you won't be able to convince the person you don't agree with or that arguing won't inspire at least one of you or me? Is that your way to be tolerant and find solutions for conflicting ideas? Congratulations! :-)

Of course I won't answer any more of your replies if there'll be some.

At first: Thank you all for your replies, every conflict can become a good and inspiring one.

You're right to criticize my lack of an easy definition of "culture" - I agree with you that it's difficult to define, what culture is. The previous answer to my Proposal was not bad, too. You both are right: Culture is a PROCESS. A process od development and changes.

But you both get superficial when you start criticizing the most important of my arguments: The superficial, syncretistic modern philosophies of life. Didn't you ever think about the possibility that even a whole dynamical system can get into decline and damage if a few of it's most important parameters are in a process of decline themselves? That the possibilities of further development and - if you want - evolution do not increase, but decrease by losing it's strongest "engines"? And thats exactly what happens in modern societies. A process of a worthy, social development depends on a collective awareness of historical, philosophical and - all in all - cultural implications. But this components of knowledge, arts, philosophy, ethics, whatever, are uprooted in the modern society. And so the possibilities of a development of a spiritually and mentally healthy and intelligent culture on the fundament of humanity is uprooted itself:
Just because the people consume this components, they don't think about it.
And this problem - which surely always existed in history - increases more and more, in the worst case in the way I described above - take a look at the chaos theory!


If the state of current society needs fixing, then it needs fixing in refernce to the current state of it. Your arguement (and I fully accept I may have totally misunderstood you on this) seems to be that if we cling to old fashioned value (a defined culture) then everything will turn out right.

Maybe the reason a culture is in decline is because it deserves to be - and that society as a whole needs to change to prevent further decline.

Maybe the reason a culture is in decline is because it deserves to be - and that society as a whole needs to change to prevent further decline.
We agree. You do not have our support.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Maybe the reason a culture is in decline is because it deserves to be - and that society as a whole needs to change to prevent further decline.

Survival of the fittest isn't always good policy.

Take endangered species for example. If there weren't for fairly expansive measures taken to keep certain species from extinction, then many of these species would be (drumroll) extinct.

Now I understand that you are not necessarily suggesting that a culture in decline is to be left to die. I read your statement as suggesting more that there shouldn't be wholesale investment of UN member time and money saving doomed, backwards societies. I think this argument has a lot of sense in it. But I also think the proposal author has a point. Cultural identity is a beautiful thing, and the the preservation of peoples' lives is a worthy cause. Certainly there is some of the same motivation that abounds to preserve envorinmental life available to be used to preserve the beauty of surrounding cultures that have little control over their own demise.

And certainly, also, there is a limit as to how much protection/preservation should be extended, to keep the UN from saving a culture that's detroying itself.

I think with a little more drafting this proposal could be very worthwhile.

To Frisbeeteria: That's just undignified.
As far as I can tell, you haven't said anything yet. Your first post says, in essence, "Hey folks - let's figure out what's wrong and then fix it!" That's a null statement here. This is the UN, and that's what we do here. And frankly, I prefer my phrasing to yours. I don't think "syncretistic philosophy" and "cultural originality" amount to much more than you saying "look at me, I have a big vocabulary"

You haven't actually proposed anything yet, and I called you on it. As to my statement on endorsements, well that's the plain out-and-out truth. You want endorsements, ask your regionmates. We can't help you unless we're in your region. If you find that undignified, than I think you'd better look up that word too.

TilEnca: I really enjoy discussing with you. I understood that my Proposal causes the impression of "backwards - conservatism". Not that I really like the imagination that just the use of the words "saving" and "culture" in a connection makes people to activate the stereotype of a dumb, conservative
preacher full of prejudices. But you convinced me that it can be otherwise.

What I definetely do not want is clinging to old-fashioned values. My argument is that modern societies don't really have values generated from an ethical fundament that provides the individual and the society (and their interdependency) with sense. Of course, there are values of humanity and the UN tries to fight for them. But while those values are developing to phrases told further and further by people with the specific social role (or identity) to do that, the individual's life becomes more and more a juggling of economic and fun-/event-oriented ressources. At last there'll be the homo oeconomicus, ruled by economical standards and pressure and the people at the top of this system, suffering by the lack of the "philosophical tools" to claim for the alternative life and control the all-over-economical system by generating alternative values. But to generate those values it is necessary for an individual and the society to know where he/she/it came from. That is to understand your own history, then your own present to generate your future - and the most important "tools" are philosophy, spirituality and, the most important, social communication and it's implications - all in all "culture".

In this context my proposal to save language implicates the hypothesis that language is not only a "symptome" of culture - it is culture-generating itself. As a tool of communication it also reflects (especially unaware) implications of our social and individual self-concept. Thus, if we are influenced by a "too fast" medial and industrial economy even in our language this industry influences our self-concepts and replaces "identities of sense" by "illusions of culture".

Sorry, if you don't understand what I mean it's probably my fault. It's difficult to describe what I mean in a few sentences and, in addition to that, in english, which isn't my native language. But if you're interested I'll try to explain further.

By, The Althing

To try to "freeze" culture or language, in my opinion, is to kill them. It creates "rules" to maintain a purity that becomes artificial. The French regulators have not been successful in stopping "le weekend" or "la computer" in spite of their best efforts. A living language grows organically not as a group of academics plans it out.

It doesn't seem to be you ultimate cause, but many who argue for cultural purity are really xenophobic and see "cultural purity" as a flag under which it is OK to hate foreigners.

Your proposal on maintaining the integrity of native languages is most likely doomed. As I have noted elewhere it is filled with typos and one fairly large error (using "permit" instead of "prohibit").

This love of tradition and fighting hard to resist change is one of the hallmarks of fundementalists (be they Christian, Islamic, or Jewish). It seems to go hand in hand with a lack of tolerance for any other view and the creation of truly brutal laws to maintain the status quo.

Survival of the fittest isn't always good policy.

Take endangered species for example. If there weren't for fairly expansive measures taken to keep certain species from extinction, then many of these species would be (drumroll) extinct.


It depends why they are endangered. I am all for not hunting down and killing every unicorn in my nation, but if they are dying out naturally - because like the leviathans - they are just not suited to a modern world, then wouldn't making them live in captivity just be torture?

But this is not a debate on animal raising, so I won't go any further down that line before I piss anyone else off :}



Now I understand that you are not necessarily suggesting that a culture in decline is to be left to die. I read your statement as suggesting more that there shouldn't be wholesale investment of UN member time and money saving doomed, backwards societies. I think this argument has a lot of sense in it. But I also think the proposal author has a point. Cultural identity is a beautiful thing, and the the preservation of peoples' lives is a worthy cause. Certainly there is some of the same motivation that abounds to preserve envorinmental life available to be used to preserve the beauty of surrounding cultures that have little control over their own demise.


(OOC)
The problem I have is that in the UK atm I hear the phrase "protect our cultural identity" coming from the BNP and the UKIP. And these are two of the most racist, xenaphobic, right-wing, neo-nazi parties you could ever imagine. So I have come to associate that phrase with just wanting to kick out all the foreigners for no other reason thatn people don't like them.

I am not suggesting that is the point of this proposal, and in no way am I trying to suggest the author is a racist or a xenaphobe or anything else that the author would probably be insulted to think anyone thought that of him. Please don't think I am!

(Back in character)


And certainly, also, there is a limit as to how much protection/preservation should be extended, to keep the UN from saving a culture that's detroying itself.


But that's the thing - I think that more than any other topic - gun control, terrorism, legal age of marriage - this is purely a national thing. The UN should not have the right to tell a nation to preserve it's culture if the nation doesn't want to, doesn't chose to or doesn't care to.

TilEnca: I really enjoy discussing with you. I understood that my Proposal causes the impression of "backwards - conservatism". Not that I really like the imagination that just the use of the words "saving" and "culture" in a connection makes people to activate the stereotype of a dumb, conservative
preacher full of prejudices. But you convinced me that it can be otherwise.


I am really hoping this isn't sarcastic :}


Sorry, if you don't understand what I mean it's probably my fault. It's difficult to describe what I mean in a few sentences and, in addition to that, in english, which isn't my native language. But if you're interested I'll try to explain further.

Don't put yourself down - it could be that I am just a bit thick :}

Josekistan: How can I explain you that "freezing" is exactly what I tempt to avoid and that modern "development" is an illusion, because it's an semmingly change, a regression on fundamental and primitive human demands - fun ans eating?

Why do left-wing-attitudes (except of TilEnca) lead people so often to search for the nazi, the foreign-haters behind a person using conservative terminology (even when this person isn't conservative, but this does not seem to be of any interest). THATs exactly what every social psychologist would critizice because its so destructive.

See my arguments above. I first want to save to have the cognitive resources for a sensible development led by humanity, not by primitive power and demand. Don't think in such an old-fashioned way.I think you won't support it, butr for interests:

My Proposal is in the proposal list.