NationStates Jolt Archive

In Jamil's thread about Arab people, there were several times where the idea of monoculture came up. I am not too sure myself if I like the idea of monoculture. So I am wondering what other people think about monoculture.

What is "monoculture"?
I see "mono" and think "oh, that's monkey en Español!" and then I think you're talking about monkey social structure in Mexico or something.

What is "monoculture"?
I see "mono" and think "oh, that's monkey en Español!" and then I think you're talking about monkey social structure in Mexico or something.

Hmm... you know what monoculture is, you're just trying to be difficult. :p

I suppose you could technically look at it as the social structue of monkeys in Mexico as well as the rest of the world.

Monoculture, as in a single homogenous culture without diversity.

Monoculture, as in a single homogenous culture without diversity.
Oh.
What do I think of it?
It might get boring.

Oh.
What do I think of it?
It might get boring.

That's what I thought, too.

Monoculture is an impossibility.

If God came down tomorrow and made everyone the same race, same religious denomination, same political views, etc., it'd last 5 minutes before subcultures and countercultures sprang up.

I think that a nation should have something of a monoculture within itself. Immigrants should assimilate into the national culture, because if there are too many cultures it tends to cause social strife. In a large culturally diverse nation like Indonesia or India for example there is a lot of hatred and violence among the various ethnicities, who do not relate to each other or have a sense of brotherhood or unity.

Monoculture, as in a single homogenous culture without diversity.

I'm concerned that, in Jamil's thread, you seemed to equate the concept of "race" with the concept of "culture." I'm also concerned that both are slippery concepts.

I am strongly in favor of diversity. I would admit, however, that (depending on how you define "culture") there are certain cultural characteristics I believe should be as widely accepted as possible -- such as respect for certain freedoms and human rights.

I am not in favor of pertuating the myth of "race" as a biological concept. I am in favor of recognizing the socio-political concept of race and seeking to end racism.

Monoculture is an impossibility.

If God came down tomorrow and made everyone the same race, same religious denomination, same political views, etc., it'd last 5 minutes before subcultures and countercultures sprang up.
Race is not culture. Any one of any race (which is a thing you are born with) can have any culture (which you learn from your surroundings).

What about a global Government monoculture? Each region would have its own subculture of the monoculture. Not a pure monoculture, but still...

Race is not culture. Any one of any race (which is a thing you are born with) can have any culture (which you learn from your surroundings).

I don't recall saying it was.

The diversity of human culture is critical to maintain because it is important to have the the different expericences and viewpoints. Many cultures are as important to maintain as different varieties of plants.

I don't recall saying it was.
I thought you were talking about culture when you mention "race, religious denomination, political views, etc" together. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Race is not culture.

True.

Any one of any race (which is a thing you are born with) can have any culture (which you learn from your surroundings).

False. Biologically, there is no such thing as race -- so you are not born with such a thing.

I'm concerned that, in Jamil's thread, you seemed to equate the concept of "race" with the concept of "culture." I'm also concerned that both are slippery concepts.

I am strongly in favor of diversity. I would admit, however, that (depending on how you define "culture") there are certain cultural characteristics I believe should be as widely accepted as possible -- such as respect for certain freedoms and human rights.

I am not in favor of pertuating the myth of "race" as a biological concept. I am in favor of recognizing the socio-political concept of race and seeking to end racism.

Please, show me where I had perpetuated "race" as a biological concept. I do not think that racial classification is a biological concept, but it is wrong to not acknowledge that "race" is not biased and complicated by what humans see as biological differences. As far as race does go, it cannot be solely-based on biology. I do not agree that the idea of race is a good idea, however I do not think that monoculture is a good thing. Recognizing the socio-political concept of race is not going to end racism.

I thought you were talking about culture when you mention "race, religious denomination, political views, etc" together. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

No problem.. I was just trying to say that 6.3 billion clones born and raised identically would form factions and such rather immediately. I was agreeing with your point, that identical racial identity, among others, wouldn't mean much.

False. Biologically, there is no such thing as race -- so you are not born with such a thing.
The degree to which race can be attributed to biology is open to interpretation. But there is not any scientific authority which will definitively say there is no such thing as a race, biologically. There are obvious outer physical differences between the 'races,' and even though these differences are skin deep, there is no rule in nature which prevents us from roughly classifying people into different races based on melanin content - a characterization based on perfectly legitimate, quantifiable science. There are other differences between various groups of people, for example East Asian women have low bone density, due to genetics. Personally I think these physical differences are good definition of race but I don't believe in intellectual differences, and i think everyone deserves the same civil rights.

No problem.. I was just trying to say that 6.3 billion clones born and raised identically would form factions and such rather immediately. I was agreeing with your point, that identical racial identity, among others, wouldn't mean much.

I would disagree. Don't you think that if the human race did ever come to such a point of genetic equilibrium, that elements like religions, politics, and cultures, would fall victim of similar results of genetic equilibrium? For instance, if we did reach monoculture, that would mean that biracial marriage and children would become beyond prevalent. In accordance, people who are against these things, would experiences these kinds of changes among their own blood lines, inevitably. With this would some the blending of different religions within offspring, resulting in the abolishment and collaboration of religions and cultures.

are we talking world monoculture or national monoculture?

I would disagree. Don't you think that if the human race did ever come to such a point of genetic equilibrium, that elements like religions, politics, and cultures, would fall victim of similar results of genetic equilibrium?

I think that if for a single moment, the entire world were given an equal identity, the nature of our minds would dictate that it wouldn't last. Identical twins take on different interests, so I don't think the DNA is the key, and our minds constantly probe and challenge accepted mores and such, and pursue individual autonomy reflexively. Thus I would be greatly surprised if no one tried to break the mold and go their own way - political and religious notions are pretty fluid even among the most likeminded people.

I think that with the population growth and rapid advancement of communication and information technologies, that a monoculture, to a degree, may be an inevitability.

are we talking world monoculture or national monoculture?

I'm assuming a sample size of anything between 2 people to 6.3 billion. In either case, clones would, through basic human cognitive processes split ideologically.

I think that if for a single moment, the entire world were given an equal identity, the nature of our minds would dictate that it wouldn't last. Identical twins take on different interests, so I don't think the DNA is the key, and our minds constantly probe and challenge accepted mores and such, and pursue individual autonomy reflexively. Thus I would be greatly surprised if no one tried to break the mold and go their own way - political and religious notions are pretty fluid even among the most likeminded people.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The event in which a world monoculture came to be, would not be some ominpotent event. It would take a long process, over several generations. The DNA of an individual and their politcal, economic, and social affiliations. There may be relations in many cases however that does not make a corrolation. As far as twins go, you are correct. I do agree with this statement and I disagree with it in another aspect. The economic, political, and religious affiliation of a person is only determined by what actually exists. For example, I cannot create random economic conditions and consider that to be my class. I could in theory but that is not what is true in reality. Like you said however, we do have our own minds. So, religion and politics I do not think could become one. I do believe that some religions will be abolished if the process of monoculture even got to such a progressive state that which is possible if certain events occured where the followers would be eradicated. As for political monoculture, I do not think it would ever exist or survive. The idea of political monoculture would result in all individual nations being run by socialist or communist governments which would most likely be the former. This would not be able to stand because 2 things are true about humans; they love capitalism and they hate corruption in the conditions where they are the ones being exploited.

The degree to which race can be attributed to biology is open to interpretation. But there is not any scientific authority which will definitively say there is no such thing as a race, biologically. There are obvious outer physical differences between the 'races,' and even though these differences are skin deep, there is no rule in nature which prevents us from roughly classifying people into different races based on melanin content - a characterization based on perfectly legitimate, quantifiable science. There are other differences between various groups of people, for example East Asian women have low bone density, due to genetics. Personally I think these physical differences are good definition of race but I don't believe in intellectual differences, and i think everyone deserves the same civil rights.

I am afraid you are wrong.

There is a great deal of scientific evidence -- particularly from the Human Genome Project and Human Genome Diversity Project-- that proves that there are no genetically distinguishable races. The scientific community is in general agreement that "race" does not exist as a biological concept. It is a socio-political concept.

Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Here is another summary of facts (and I recognize the last is not necessarily a scientific "fact"):

TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm)

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?

There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:

1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

8. Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

10. Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.

Here are a few sources of information:


Scientific and Folk Ideas About Heredity (http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/Baltimore.html)
Race is inherited, but in a different fashion from biological heredity. Race is inherited according to no scientific laws, rather, by a commonsense or folk cultural system. Like the way we name our relatives, it’s not determined by biology, and doesn’t map very well onto genetic relationships. In fact that’s precisely what races are -- named groups, nothing more. ...

The key thing is to appreciate that race and genetics aren’t from the same worlds. So it’s not that one is good and the other is bad. It’s that one is scientific, and the other provides a means of localizing yourself and others in a very subjective world of social relations. The difficulty comes when we confuse them for one another. It’s not that race doesn’t exist, as I occasionally see it in the newspaper; it’s that race doesn’t exist as a biological entity. It certainly exists as a symbolic, social category; and that makes it more real and more important than if it were biological.Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
After analyzing thousands of DNA samples collected in smaller studies, experts are amazed at the genetic unity that binds our diverse, polyglot species. Any two people, regardless of geography or ethnicity, share at least 99.99 percent of their genetic makeups--a deep sameness that makes a mockery of racist ideologies such as Nazism.

Paradoxically, the minuscule .01 percent of our genome that does make people different doesn't shake out along visible racial lines. Instead, some 85 percent of human genetic diversity occurs within ethnic groups, not between them. The traits that so polarize our culture--the shade of our skin, the shape of an eye, hair texture--actually hide a dazzling and unexpected molecular tapestry that reflects our true origins. The European gene pool, for example, carries the story of where its members came from--and where they later migrated. It is a swirl of 35 percent African genes and 65 percent Asian genes.
Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity (http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305muk.htm)
Race and Ethnicity (http://cas-courses.buffalo.edu/classes/apy/anab/apy106/handouts/Race_and_Ethnicity.htm)
In the US the general public has been conditioned to view human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences (phenotype). It has now become clear to anthropologists that human populations are not unambiguous clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from genetics (e.g. DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within "racial groups" (94%) than between racial groups (6%). The attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations is arbitrary and subjective.
What are the differences between races? (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm)
Attempts to create categories of biological races have centered on phenotypic differences. A phenotype is the entirety of traits that an individual possesses, including external characteristics such as eye color and shape, body size and shape, hair color and texture, and skin color. In recent years attempts have also been made to evaluate genotypic differences to justify biological races. Genotype refers to a person's genetic makeup. These attempts have tried to define clusters of characteristics in one population that are not found in other populations. These clusters supposedly would enable different populations to be divided into distinct races. Such attempts have failed, however, and what researchers have found is that biological variations exist on a cline rather than in delimited geographic clusters with gaps in between. A cline refers to a gradual change of a trait and its frequency from one place to another within a species or population. The change usually corresponds to some change in the environment across the geographic range of a species. Any boundary line drawn at a point along the continuum is therefore arbitrary. So, the idea of distinct races defined by hard-and-fast differences has fallen apart as anthropologists have studied the genetic and physical characteristics of human populations.
The Biology of Race (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm)
Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.”
The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219?ijkey=z/aJLHX5GkJnA&key)
We're All Related to Kevin Bacon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21167-2002Dec6&notFound=true)
HUMAN DIVERSITY AND "RACE" (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072500506/23746/CHAPTER5.doc)
The Geometer of Race (http://www.greeninformation.com/The%20Geometer%20of%20Race.htm)

Cool stuff, Cat. I need to keep that on file for aguing with Nazis. I've told them that, but never could point to a source.

I apologize for another long post, but I have some apologizing and explaining to do.

Please, show me where I had perpetuated "race" as a biological concept. I do not think that racial classification is a biological concept, but it is wrong to not acknowledge that "race" is not biased and complicated by what humans see as biological differences. As far as race does go, it cannot be solely-based on biology. I do not agree that the idea of race is a good idea, however I do not think that monoculture is a good thing. Recognizing the socio-political concept of race is not going to end racism.

First of all, I meant no offense and I am sorry if I offended. I definitely was not (and am not) asserting you were racist or anything like that. I did not (and do not) mean to mischaracterize your views, but meant to ask for clarification.

Next, I was a little confused by some of what you said, but was going to apologize further for making unwarranted assumptions about your views. Your original post in this thread did not make any reference to race. Making assumptions from things you had said in another thread, I was "concerned" that you might be equating race and culture (that is all I said, nothing more or less). It appeared I was completely wrong.

But then you said this (emphasis added):
I would disagree. Don't you think that if the human race did ever come to such a point of genetic equilibrium, that elements like religions, politics, and cultures, would fall victim of similar results of genetic equilibrium? For instance, if we did reach monoculture, that would mean that biracial marriage and children would become beyond prevalent. In accordance, people who are against these things, would experiences these kinds of changes among their own blood lines, inevitably. With this would some the blending of different religions within offspring, resulting in the abolishment and collaboration of religions and cultures.

You appear to equate "monoculture" with "genetic equilibrium." You appear to hypothesize that "genetic equilibrium" would result in the end of variation in religion, politics, and culture.

And you futher said this:

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The event in which a world monoculture came to be, would not be some ominpotent event. It would take a long process, over several generations. The DNA of an individual and their politcal, economic, and social affiliations. There may be relations in many cases however that does not make a corrolation. [snip]

You appear to back off to some degree about politics, religion, etc. following DNA, but still appear to assert they are related. And you do again seem to equate "monoculture" with genetics.

Regardless, I still apologize for any offense, but I do hope you can clarify.

If you do believe there is a relationship between genetics and culture, I disagree. (I do not necessarily condemn or scorn such a view -- I merely disagree and would ask for explanation.) I do not think that is what you mean, but I am unsure given some of your statements.

I think it is clear that race does not exist as a matter of biology. Race is a socio-political concept. It is certainly true, however, that people believe race is based on biology. And this pernicious belief makes fighting racism more difficult. It is true that race (in the socio-political sense) is related to culture.

With that I want to return to a couple of things you said:

I do not think that racial classification is a biological concept, but it is wrong to not acknowledge that "race" is not biased and complicated by what humans see as biological differences.

I think we actually agree here. Race has no basis in biology, but the concept of race definitely exists and people believe that it is based in biology (which complicates ending racism).

I do not agree that the idea of race is a good idea, however I do not think that monoculture is a good thing.

We agree that the idea of race is generally bad, but we agree that diversity is a virtue.

Recognizing the socio-political concept of race is not going to end racism.

If I implied that recoginizing race is a socio-political concept would end racism by itself, I mispoke. I meant than an important step towards ending racism is to end the belief in the biological concept of race. Unfortunately, even that great task is unlikely to be sufficient.

I think that with the population growth and rapid advancement of communication and information technologies, that a monoculture, to a degree, may be an inevitability.

I think so too. IMO, culture is how you live your life. With increased technology and information, people would start shedding old wives tales and just do what that which works most effective.

We won't move to a total national monoculture though, as celebrating diversity is a nice thing to do :) And it's nice to take a walk back to your roots and do/celebrate the things your forefathers used to celebrate.

I apologize for another long post, but I have some apologizing and explaining to do.



First of all, I meant no offense and I am sorry if I offended. I definitely was not (and am not) asserting you were racist or anything like that. I did not (and do not) mean to mischaracterize your views, but meant to ask for clarification.

Next, I was a little confused by some of what you said, but was going to apologize further for making unwarranted assumptions about your views. Your original post in this thread did not make any reference to race. Making assumptions from things you had said in another thread, I was "concerned" that you might be equating race and culture (that is all I said, nothing more or less). It appeared I was completely wrong.

But then you said this (emphasis added):


You appear to equate "monoculture" with "genetic equilibrium." You appear to hypothesize that "genetic equilibrium" would result in the end of variation in religion, politics, and culture.

And you futher said this:



You appear to back off to some degree about politics, religion, etc. following DNA, but still appear to assert they are related. And you do again seem to equate "monoculture" with genetics.

Regardless, I still apologize for any offense, but I do hope you can clarify.

If you do believe there is a relationship between genetics and culture, I disagree. (I do not necessarily condemn or scorn such a view -- I merely disagree and would ask for explanation.) I do not think that is what you mean, but I am unsure given some of your statements.

I think it is clear that race does not exist as a matter of biology. Race is a socio-political concept. It is certainly true, however, that people believe race is based on biology. And this pernicious belief makes fighting racism more difficult. It is true that race (in the socio-political sense) is related to culture.

With that I want to return to a couple of things you said:



I think we actually agree here. Race has no basis in biology, but the concept of race definitely exists and people believe that it is based in biology (which complicates ending racism).



We agree that the idea of race is generally bad, but we agree that diversity is a virtue.



If I implied that recoginizing race is a socio-political concept would end racism by itself, I mispoke. I meant than an important step towards ending racism is to end the belief in the biological concept of race. Unfortunately, even that great task is unlikely to be sufficient.

I do not believe that culture equate genetic equilibrium. However, you do have to admit that the events leading up to monoculture would result in changes in culture and religion. I do agree that it would not bring religion and culture into "monoculture", but it would definitely cause cultures and religions to evolve . I'm sorry if I was unclear or missaid something. What I had said in response to Pepe Dominguez is not very clear out of context. In earlier posts he had mentioned god turning all cultures and religion into one. This is equating religion and culture as monoculture. That is why I had said what you had thought to perhaps equate culture and genetic equilibirum. When people have children, their culture, religion, and beliefs are passed down to them(or whomever's influences are present). However, this does not mean these things have stayed in tact. As humans know, when children grow up, their culture, religion, and beliefs evolve from that of their parents. That is all that I meant.

I do not believe that culture equate genetic equilibrium. However, you do have to admit that the events leading up to monoculture would result in changes in culture and religion. I do agree that it would not bring religion and culture into "monoculture", but it would definitely cause cultures and religions to evolve . I'm sorry if I was unclear or missaid something. What I had said in response to Pepe Dominguez is not very clear out of context. In earlier posts he had mentioned god turning all cultures and religion into one. This is equating religion and culture as monoculture. That is why I had said what you had thought to perhaps equate culture and genetic equilibirum. When people have children, their culture, religion, and beliefs are passed down to them(or whomever's influences are present). However, this does not mean these things have stayed in tact. As humans know, when children grow up, their culture, religion, and beliefs evolve from that of their parents. That is all that I meant.

I think I got it: Culture (and religion) are inherited (at least to a degree). Not inherited genetically, but taught and passed down from generation to generation. This process increases exponentially as culture becomes more homogeneous.

I hope I've got that right and it clears things up. Thanks.

To the extent I have hijacked your thread by discussing race, I am sorry.

As to your original question about monoculture, I think I prefer a balance of shared culture and diversity.