On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Haim <email@example.com> wrote: > Jerry P. Becker Posted: Sep 10, 2012 6:55 PM > >>CERME8 (The Eighth Congress of the European Society for >>Research in Mathematics Education) will take place at >>Antalya, Turkey: 6th to 10th February 2013 >>(http://www.cerme8.metu.edu.tr). > > Fascinating that Jerry should submit this particular item, while the multiculturalism discussion is ongoing. > > The Turkish Empire > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_empire > offers a superb subject for the study of multiculturalism. >
Multiculturalism causes violence only in the minds of those who define the term to make it so.
This violence has utterly nothing to do with multiculturalism, since every last person who commits said violence is not a multiculturalist but a monoculturalist who believes that all cultures other than his/her own must die.
This garbage conservatives spew about the so-called evil of multiculturalism is nothing but excuse-making for the violence of monoculturalists. This nonsense by conservatives against multiculturalism says that these monoculturalists committing this violence have the excuse that says, "That evil multiculturalism made me do it!"
It's an obscenely stupid claim that multiculturalism - the philosophy that there should be tolerance of other cultures - causes such violence when it is actually the racism analog of monoculturalism that causes it, monoculturalism being the philosophy that only one culture should be allowed to exist, this being the one supreme culture, and that there should be no tolerance of all other cultures.
Monoculturalism is inherently fascist - a true evil inherently against the ideals of democracy.
The Nazi and communist and other big-time butchers of the 20th century were all practitioners of monoculturalism extraordinaire.
to see links to reviews of her book *Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance - and Why They Fall* (2007).
"Call 'em the Magnificent Seven. There have been many great powers in history but only seven that Amy Chua describes in Day of Empire as hyperpowers, those that have dominated not only their immediate surroundings but all the known world of their time: Persia, Rome, China, the Mongols, the Dutch, the British and the United States. Chua finds they all achieved dominance by similar means, then succumbed to similar ills. The lone exception to this pattern of decline has been America, and that may be only a matter of time. Chua, a Yale law professor, worries that America may now be slipping off the top perch for the same reasons that its predecessors did: Once "a magnet for the world's most energetic and enterprising" people "of all ethnicities and backgrounds," she says, the United States seems to be tipping toward intolerance and "xenophobic backlash."
The Magnificent Seven all obtained the acquiescence, even the support, of diverse peoples stretched over vast territories through what Chua calls "strategic tolerance." They accepted the customs and religious practices of the defeated; they recruited the best and the brightest of their new subjects for government and military service, sharing the riches and other benefits of empire.
This co-opting of human resources is what, to Chua, separates true hyperpowers from other imperial entities, such as the Ming and Mughal empires and medieval Spain. In one small but illuminating example, she notes that at the zenith of China's Tang dynasty in 713 -- "the most magnificent cultural flowering that China would ever see" -- the emperor received a delegation of Arab ambassadors and waived the requirement for them to perform a ceremonial kowtow. Roughly 1,000 years later, by contrast, China's Manchu rulers made the opposite decision, turning away an English envoy because he refused to prostrate himself. The Manchus were less tolerant than the Tang, and far less successful as a result.
Chua charts each hyperpower's decline from the point when its leaders stopped embracing diversity and started repressing part of the population in the name of racial purity or religious orthodoxy. At that moment, she says, the crucial "glue" of an overarching political identity disappeared, and otherwise manageable disputes became mortal.
"If the history of hyperpowers has shown anything, it is the danger of xenophobic backlash," she writes. "Time and again, past world-dominant powers have fallen precisely when their core groups turned intolerant, reasserting their 'true' or 'pure' identity and adopting exclusionary policies toward 'unassimilable' groups. From this point of view, attempts to demonize immigrants or to attribute America's success to 'Anglo-Protestant' virtues is not only misleading (neither the atomic bomb nor Silicon Valley was particularly 'Anglo-Protestant' in origin) but dangerous.""
In addition to reading this book by Amy Chua and seeing what she says in her lecture at the Levin Institute available in 10 parts at YouTube: