Religion...

[aknowledgeableperson]

If an atheist cusses does he/she say "goddamnit" and "gotohell"?  If so isn't that an acknowledgement of a god?

[ignatius]

^Cultural reference.  Like saying 'good karma' but not really believing in it.  Or when playing bridge and winning, will say the bridge gods were kind to me.  I reference superstitions often w/out believing in them.  Scientists use god as a metaphor often, not literally.  The god concept exists and is often referenced, not the god itself.

[ignatius]

Arguably, I'd bet that if many of those tribes gained sufficient power, they would have no issue expanding at the expense of other cultures.

Yeah some already do attempt to eliminate each other, many have in the past.  Of other world religions though that do have resources to go and convert other tribes, it's primarily Christians and Muslims doing so (and Buddhists to some degree but not as aggressive).  It's in the nature of their habits via the doctrine moreso than other religions.

Sucks for anthropologists too.  Tribes disconnected from the modern world give us a great indication of what pre-civilization humanity was like, especially when you compare habits of disconnected tribes from different parts of the world.  Granted, globalization in general is reducing cultural identity across the board.  There used to be thousands and thousands of languages, now there might be 2-4K and it's shrinking relatively fast.  

Evolution of language is a fascinating topic.  We are now experiencing de-evolution of languages with essentially no new ones being created due to globalization with common forms of communication, contact and technology.

BTW, Papua/New Guinea has (had) the most diversity of the world's languages, nearly 1000 languages (though shrinking fast).  Depends on how you distinguish language from dialect but there are many tribes who do not understand each other within days walking distance.  The reason is attributed to isolation due to very rough terrain and their belief of evil spirits in the forest.  They don't travel much, contacting each other regularly.  Languages in general spawn due to isolation and diminish with globalization or regular contact.  The same is said about biological evolution - isolation is a key component in most cases.

[IraGlacialis]

Yeah some already do attempt to eliminate each other, many have in the past.  Of other world religions though that do have resources to go and convert other tribes, it's primarily Christians and Muslims doing so (and Buddhists to some degree but not as aggressive).  It's in the nature of their habits via the doctrine moreso than other religions.

Sucks for anthropologists too.  Tribes disconnected from the modern world give us a great indication of what pre-civilization humanity was like, especially when you compare habits of disconnected tribes from different parts of the world.  Granted, globalization in general is reducing cultural identity across the board.  There used to be thousands and thousands of languages, now there might be 2-4K and it's shrinking relatively fast.

The way I see it, there is nothing inherently wrong (or inherently virtuous) with proselytizing in itself. It happens all the time on a smaller scale. Yes, religion has spread by less-than-savory means, but there have been instances (in the Abrahamic as well as Dharmic faiths) where it has spread in a peaceful and culturally sensitive manner. The key is the manner in which the proselytizing occurs. Buddhism did it largely in a accommodating manner. Today, Catholicism to a good degree seems to learned from those mistakes (there is still some progress to be made) and also does it in that way (I note one traditional Thai shrine that had a Virgin Mary instead of a Hindu deity). However, it is notable and regrettable, that many Protestant missionaries/preachers do their attempts at conversion in an uncomfortable manner.
It's one of those cases while it is good to learn from past mistakes (and boy were there some...), but brooding about those misdeeds really just ends up breeding bad feelings.

Yes, it is distressing to see cultures go out with a whimper, but, these days, there is just are just as many secular reasons than there are from religion or inter-tribal conquest.
The best thing that can be done is log as much information possible to be on the safe side.

The funny thing is, a good portion of information we get about a lot of tribal cultures comes from missionaries going abroad. And also there are some tribe that are practically impossible to convert (the Piraha for example).

Evolution of language is a fascinating topic.  We are now experiencing de-evolution of languages with essentially no new ones being created due to globalization with common forms of communication, contact and technology.

On an interesting flipside, there is a possible evolution of dialect occurring amongst languages. And who knows; there may be an event that causes a fracturing of languages again, as has occurred with Latin.

[mlind]

Linguistics is a fascinating field.  There are occasionally articles in the paper about a language that is dying out.  In California schools, the story of Ishi is taught. He was the only remaining speaker of his language.

What is also taught is how the missions that were established from San Diego to Sonoma in Northern California converted the 'natives' to Catholicism, treated them like slaves, and destroyed their culture.  Not a pretty story.

[ignatius]

And who knows; there may be an event that causes a fracturing of languages again, as has occurred with Latin.

If the theory of isolation is 'correct', new language development would likely take some kind of breakdown in globalization, where societies again become isolated from each other.  I haven't  specifically looked into the formation of Latin-based languages but from what I've read at a high level, isolation of split cultures is the likely cause.  In this age of transportation making it easier for societies to mix and with electronic communication, is a bit harder to create new languages.  We do have new terms we add to existing languages of course.  Splinter groups who don't want to be involved with modern world might form new dialects/languages but would still take some isolation from the modern world which most likely wouldn't completely do (ie, Amish).

European cultural identity of each country is now obviously at risk with the increased globalization and intermingling, ditto of course for other older civilizations.  Each culture likely formed with some degree of isolation and will break down with globalization.  To Highlander's point, this has happened over and over again with every domination.  Now it's perhaps happening through societal acceptance of globalization.   You either play the global game or lose out not playing at all.

[mean]

If an atheist cusses does he/she say "goddamnit" and "gotohell"?  If so isn't that an acknowledgement of a god?

In much the same way as when some guy cuts me off on the highway, and I scream, "Fuck you!" I am actually acknowledging that I'm gay.

[IraGlacialis]

European cultural identity of each country is now obviously at risk with the increased globalization and intermingling, ditto of course for other older civilizations. Each culture likely formed with some degree of isolation and will break down with globalization.  To Highlander's point, this has happened over and over again with every domination.  Now it's perhaps happening through societal acceptance of globalization.  You either play the global game or lose out not playing at all.

At the same token, it could be said that Europe's steadfast desire to preserve their culture down to the very last point, combined with the desire to be a global player, is currently biting it in the ass with immigrants from Turkey and N. Africa.

[aknowledgeableperson]

^Cultural reference.  Like saying 'good karma' but not really believing in it.  Or when playing bridge and winning, will say the bridge gods were kind to me.  I reference superstitions often w/out believing in them.  Scientists use god as a metaphor often, not literally.  The god concept exists and is often referenced, not the god itself.

Post was more in fun than for something serious.  But then maybe there is something in your subconscious that is trying to get through.

[ignatius]

Yeah, countries like France are in a lose lose situation.  Old world countries partly formed unique identity via cultural isolation.  New world countries like the Americas/Australia are built on cultural diversity and (relatively) have less old world identity to lose with globalization.  US identity IS the diversity.  Europe is more at risk since diversity is happening at a faster rate than the maintenance of their original core identity.  Asian counties are still mostly populated by people of their core identity and may not lose their identity as quickly if even mostly (due to globalization).  They might apply more influence than be influenced. 

One way I see Euro countries could maintain their original core identities in the next several generations is if they can be self-sustaining and not have to play the global game.  A risky thing if they fail at that, then they'll likely be dominated in another form or if they succeed, you have a bad case on stubborn Nationalists.  Since these countries were formed with a form of isolation that doesn't exist anymore, the writing is on the wall those unique identies will fade quite a bit.

France seems to be the first test case.  Who else sooner than later?  Britian is becoming very diverse rather rapidly but their core identity has more global influence already.  English is becoming the global language for one thing.

[ignatius]

Post was more in fun than for something serious.  But then maybe there is something in your subconscious that is trying to get through.

Nah, just simply answering the question.

[Highlander]

Yeah, countries like France are in a lose lose situation.  Old world countries partly formed unique identity via cultural isolation.  New world countries like the Americas/Australia are built on cultural diversity and (relatively) have less old world identity to lose with globalization.  US identity IS the diversity.  Europe is more at risk since diversity is happening at a faster rate than the maintenance of their original core identity.  Asian counties are still mostly populated by people of their core identity and may not lose their identity as quickly if even mostly (due to globalization).  They might apply more influence than be influenced.  

A debate perhaps for another day.  In the US, diverse groups are more or less homogenized into the popular culture after a generation or two.  Probably why we have had much less problem with homegrown Islamic terrorism than Europe where groups from the middle east and Asia never quite feel all that French or Swedish.  Obviously, we have had problems but not on the scale of Europe.  Consequently, I laugh when  fellow forumers speak of American blacks and hispanics in a suburb comprising diversity.  Skin color perhaps but it's not true cultural diversity, yea some variations on a theme, but essentially the same cultural identity as the rest of the country.  Europe is actually more diverse, for better or worse extra-European cultures tend to preserve their identities rather than blend in (particularly at the lower income levels) and you can generally find nationals from just about every EU country in every medium sized city.  Where I worked in the UK, the laborers tended to be Asian, service people were Polish or from another slavic EU country and the professional staff generally from western Europe or the Middle East (oil industry has a lot middle eastern professionals - generally Arab).  You can find that in US cities too but not at the same scale unless you are in California or the NE.  Houston actually is extremely diverse in that way too... largely due to the petroleum industry.  

[ignatius]

Am thinking more of how the countries were formed.  While the US on the whole is not diverse in the same way (though still is), the US was built from various peoples from many cultures of the world through its entire existence (granted, then became homogenized). Hence the melting pot.  Unlike the US, old world countries developed unique cultural identities through isolation. 

So do you think Euro countries should attempt to maintain their identities, close the doors, and become essentially Nationalists?  I see it as a lose lose situation from the perspective of traditionalists.  The state of isolation doesn't existing anymore and those original identities will probably become shadows in the countries that are now becoming diverse.  If you can't beat it, prepare to manage it.  But if they try to do some social engineering, they may create second class citizens.  I only see a lose/lose situation unless they just move forward as unified earthlings instead of old world traditionalists.

[Highlander]

I only see a lose/lose situation unless they just move forward as unified earthlings instead of old world traditionalists.

Well, I think the world would be somewhat less of a nice place without Norwegian or French culture just as you think tribal globalization by missionairies is a sad thing. 

[ignatius]

Tribal cultures are not equipped to play in the modern world.  When it's unwittingly brought to them, they often lose their self-sufficiency and become poor in context to the modern world. IE, they live in shacks and govt housing instead of building their own huts.  They become dependent on or desire modern amenities they are not equipped to acquire. They ideally would be left alone until ready to play in the modern world.  Sort of like the Gene Roddenberry Prime Directive thing.

For societies already a part of the modern world, they have a choice to adapt or stick to their traditions. I'm not really sure if there is a win/win solution for Europe but do understand their identities were created by isolation and those conditions don't exist anymore.  The writing is on the wall they need to figure out how to adapt rather than try to maintain a static state.  That said, I'd hate to potentially lose out on my favorite Rhone region wines to some other immigrating culture using it for some other purpose.  It would be a loss for sure.  And that's just one tiny insignificant example.

Yeah, I do find both situations sad (tribal globalization and potential euro loss of identity) but also realize both are going to be thrown into situations out of their control anyway.  Euro countries have a little more control of their destiny than affected tribal cultures do.

[IraGlacialis]

So do you think Euro countries should attempt to maintain their identities, close the doors, and become essentially Nationalists?

If you look at the apparent popularity of Gert Wilders, it looks like at least some are trying to go that path.

[ignatius]

The Euro situations reminds me of global climate change.  Do you spend your resources trying to stop it when the ball has too much momentum or do you spend your resources to prepare for the change.  It's naive to think we can keep the planet in a static state. They could manage what they can to sustain their identity, like it's worth the effort to keep the air/waters clean.  But if they don't prepare for inevitable changes and naively try to keep everything in a static state, the changes will overpower them.  Rules of nature... adapt or become extinct.

[mlind]

I recently started studying Spanish, decades after my last college class.  I surprised to discover that the Spanish equivalent of the Academie Francais has decided that 'ch' is no longer a separate letter in the Spanish alphabet. 

And, years ago, I had neighbors from the UK who were here on sabbitical.  After 6-9 month, one of their children was watching an English show on PBS and asked her mother why the actors were talking funny. 

[ignatius]

What are the Christian 'rules' everyone is talking about?  The only 'rules' I see are some very basic ones that you'd be hard to find anyone disagree with.  ie. don't kill each other, don't cheat on your spouse, etc.  

Right, and there's a difference between humans figuring that out for themselves or proposing a higher power told us so.  Would propose the former is much more likely the case and that at this point in time, is more practical for us to learn from lessons of many experiences, not just one source.  It's time we give humanity credit for its own successes, growth of understanding,  and accountability for and learning from its own failures than to put the understanding of ourselves in a supernatural context.  

If you take a look at transitions from early tribal beliefs to polytheism to monotheism, the historical pattern of inventing and reinventing supernatural purpose seems to be partly out of misunderstanding natural forces, partly to act as a placebo for coping with life when needs aren't being met and as a way for leaders to manage a society, especially before literacy.

More mainstream faith-based people living half secular lives are now picking and choosing the parts they like of particular religion(s) and now call themselves 'spiritual' instead of 'religious'.  Many still put it in a supernatural context though, which I'd propose is unreasonable given new information of today, such as understanding of natural forces and broader access to information allowing cross cultural comparison.

[Marreekarr]

If you take a look at transitions from early tribal beliefs to polytheism to monotheism, the historical pattern of inventing and reinventing supernatural purpose seems to be partly out of misunderstanding natural forces...

I know what you are saying.  People saw God in Nature.  Yet I really started believing in God when I prayed and something actually seemed to be happening in response.  I can't prove it.  But I know what I saw in front of my eyes and I couldn't believe it.  Something was there and it seemed to be interacting with me.  It's not much different from physicists looking at the nucleus of an atom that they cannot see.  They shoot something into the dark and they get a response.  No one has ever seen an atomic nucleus.  But we know that it exists.