Debate Now Is the Cultural Paradigm Shifting Along with the Demographic Changes?

[there4eyeM]

Paradigm shift? Materialism has only been growing stronger, in spite of all the evidence against its being good for humans or realistic in scientific/quantum mechanics terms. That isn't a 'shift', just acceleration in the same gear.

....and the motor is at its limit, about to blow.

 

[Olde Europe]

If our country had ended up more homogeneous..would that have been a positive? For Black people/For White people?

Well..anyway..here we are. An amalgam of cultures and races. To me, race is irrelevant..culture rules.

If, in fact, "race is irrelevant", why associate demographic and cultural shifts at all? Why start this thread?

Of course, race matters, and it did right from the start - racism isn't called "America's birth defect" for nothing. It's at the core of American culture and "values", values determining what is up and what is down, what is right or wrong. Opportunity has been, and will be, available for some, not so much for others. I think, you are dismissing race and racism as a driving force in far too blase a fashion, and while I find Asclepias a bit annoying at times, he adds a valuable perspective Whites don't usually get. So, in a debate involving demographic shifts, listening to him helps us all to get to a broader, more detailed picture of reality.

That said, why could the U.S. turning into a White plurality (!) nation matter? Why could it matter even though a tiny, overwhelmingly white upper crust will dominate the U.S. economy and continue to exert an outsize influence over policy-making? The reason is, of course, that Whites no longer out-vote minorities in ever growing swathes of the country, more minority representatives will vote on laws, and more minority experience will influence law-making. That experience is, in large part, one of discrimination, and there is no disputing it. We see the beginnings of that right now in a racially diverse Democratic House majority, and we should also acknowledge the high number of women running and winning. Because, next to racism, sexism is the other half of that birth defect, even though it's way less often acknowledged.

What we are seeing in the currently rampant Trumpism (there is no way to avoid current politics without losing track of reality) is the rear-guard action of a White majority losing their majority status in the foreseeable future and trying to maintain their supremacy. Whatever future shift emerges from this, I hold, depends in large part on how this is going to be "resolved". There are basically two extreme options, the Bannon "solution" of ever more stridently asserted "White culture supremacy", and then-Senator Obama's "One Nation America", as outlined in his keynote speech in 2004, emphasizing the commonalities.

There will be other factors changing culture, ranging from climate science, social media, education to technology and automation, but discussing these without the underlying theme of racism and the implied unequal distribution of resources is faulty, at best, and might even miss what the future holds entirely.

 

[there4eyeM]

The stupidity, absurdity and cruelty called "racism" is transnational. It has existed across the ages. It is one of the monumental shortcomings of mankind. It only takes a change of mind, an opening to truth, for it to end.
Would that we survive long enough to see it.

 

[Foxfyre]

If our country had ended up more homogeneous..would that have been a positive? For Black people/For White people?

Well..anyway..here we are. An amalgam of cultures and races. To me, race is irrelevant..culture rules.

If, in fact, "race is irrelevant", why associate demographic and cultural shifts at all? Why start this thread?

Of course, race matters, and it did right from the start - racism isn't called "America's birth defect" for nothing. It's at the core of American culture and "values", values determining what is up and what is down, what is right or wrong. Opportunity has been, and will be, available for some, not so much for others. I think, you are dismissing race and racism as a driving force in far too blase a fashion, and while I find Asclepias a bit annoying at times, he adds a valuable perspective Whites don't usually get. So, in a debate involving demographic shifts, listening to him helps us all to get to a broader, more detailed picture of reality.

That said, why could the U.S. turning into a White plurality (!) nation matter? Why could it matter even though a tiny, overwhelmingly white upper crust will dominate the U.S. economy and continue to exert an outsize influence over policy-making? The reason is, of course, that Whites no longer out-vote minorities in ever growing swathes of the country, more minority representatives will vote on laws, and more minority experience will influence law-making. That experience is, in large part, one of discrimination, and there is no disputing it. We see the beginnings of that right now in a racially diverse Democratic House majority, and we should also acknowledge the high number of women running and winning. Because, next to racism, sexism is the other half of that birth defect, even though it's way less often acknowledged.

What we are seeing in the currently rampant Trumpism (there is no way to avoid current politics without losing track of reality) is the rear-guard action of a White majority losing their majority status in the foreseeable future and trying to maintain their supremacy. Whatever future shift emerges from this, I hold, depends in large part on how this is going to be "resolved". There are basically two extreme options, the Bannon "solution" of ever more stridently asserted "White culture supremacy", and then-Senator Obama's "One Nation America", as outlined in his keynote speech in 2004, emphasizing the commonalities.

There will be other factors changing culture, ranging from climate science, social media, education to technology and automation, but discussing these without the underlying theme of racism and the implied unequal distribution of resources is faulty, at best, and might even miss what the future holds entirely.

I strongly disagree that "Trumpism" as you call it is a poorly veiled effort to retain or attain 'white supremacy' and I think generally only the blatant racists, closet racists, or manipulative opportunists would characterize it that way. (I say generally to allow for an exception here and there.)

President Trump is the first President in a very long time who puts absolutely zero importance on race other than to point out that certain racial and ethnic demographics have been poorly served by the race baiters and activists and the politicians who promise them all sorts of goodies so long as they stay faithfully on the figurative plantation. And he can't resist enjoying that his approval rating has been rising among those groups who are seeing that his policies aimed at raising all boats indiscriminately is also raising theirs.

 

[Pilot1]

I am more concerned with the cultural shift to a more, and more urban/suburban society where metro areas are now controlling entire states even though the values, and ideals differ greatly than those that live outside those metros. The metro areas are now DICTATING their progressive (Democrat) policies to those that want nothing to do with them.

This trend will continue, and will forever re-shape our country, and not for the better. Liberal/Progressive thought, and policy is a CANCER.

 

[Correll]

I am more concerned with the cultural shift to a more, and more urban/suburban society where metro areas are now controlling entire states even though the values, and ideals differ greatly. The metro areas are now DICTATING their progressive (Democrat) policies to those that want nothing to do with them.

This tread will continue, and will forever re-shape our country, and not for the better. Liberal/Progressive thought, and policy is a CANCER.

That is a valid point. My state is dominated by two cities, and one of the in particular. It is fucking shit hole, and yet the rest of the state, not a shit hole, has to live with the morons that are elected because of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am more concerned with the cultural shift to a more, and more urban/suburban society where metro areas are now controlling entire states even though the values, and ideals differ greatly. The metro areas are now DICTATING their progressive (Democrat) policies to those that want nothing to do with them.

This tread will continue, and will forever re-shape our country, and not for the better. Liberal/Progressive thought, and policy is a CANCER.

That, plus the ability to use political correctness to either destroy people or bludgeon them into submission in a way only a dedicated Fascist or Nazi could love, is maybe the most significant cultural shift. For instance every single county in Nevada other than Clark County could vote red, but if Clark County votes blue, Nevada is classified a blue state. Even California of a size and population exceeding most countries in the world is controlled by two or three population centers spanning a very few counties. And California is classified according to how those very few major population centers go.

If the Democrats are successful doing away with the electoral college, 95% of the country will have no say in who the President is. They will be able to pad the population of 5% of less of the nation and pretty much control everybody.

Also it is unhealthy to have most of the population concentrated in a few large cities while rural areas decline. I don't know how to reverse that other than to provide incentive for commerce and industry to return to the small towns.

 

[Pilot1]

At some point even the Electoral College won't matter as the population centers in each state will force those EC votes go to Democrats. The original concept of the U.S. as a collection of states is dying, or already dead. We were supposed to be able to vote with our feet, and move to a state that reflected our political, social, and economic views. Metro areas are forcing a homogenization of the U.S. to reflect URBAN, Progressive values.

Yes the soft tyranny (fascism) of Political Correctness is damaging as people fear losing their jobs if they speak their minds. So, we now live in an Orwellian society where hate speech, and possibly hate thought will become illegal. Who gets to define what is hate speech? The Media, and Government bureaucrats. Both very Progressive.

 

[Olde Europe]

President Trump is the first President in a very long time who puts absolutely zero importance on race other than to point out that certain racial and ethnic demographics have been poorly served by the race baiters and activists and the politicians who promise them all sorts of goodies so long as they stay faithfully on the figurative plantation.

Yes, exactly, this was concisely and admirably put. It's also very likely, under Trump, the way the GOP will try to play this - has tried already, to be precise. There is the strident denial of racism, the virtue signaling that is to be expected. Right next comes the denigration of minorities, who are depicted as susceptible to promises of "goodies", and mentally not fit to resist the siren calls of the "plantation", whereas Whites are competent and virtuous enough not to fall for the like. The third, implied, message is, of course, also to Whites, that minorities are bent on a life of dependency at White taxpayers' expense.

It is also not hard to figure out how that, if successful, will play out in the future. Minorities will sense the denigration, and Whites, already aggrieved, and feeling they, their livelihoods, and their status are under assault, will be further aggrieved. I hold, that is a recipe for race and culture clashes - Black or Brown people and laziness and dependency vs. White people and a culture of hard work and family - while the GOP relies on a dwindling portion of the White population for electoral success, which will require ever higher portions of the White portion to be flocking to the GOP. All this, of course, has further consequences as more and more resources need to be diverted into keeping the clashing parts of the population off each others' throats, which would then be not available to prepare the nation for future challenges, which will be manifold.

It is also clear that, as the demographics change, this represents a dead end, once minorities begin to outvote Whites. The earlier Republicans understand this and cease to sleepwalk the path Trump put them on, the better for the GOP and the nation.

 

[Unkotare]

My first shot--

The cultural paradigm of the country has always changed, sometimes gradually and sometimes quite quickly, i.e. ending slavery, westward movement, women voting, the railroad, the dust bowl, movement from farms to cities, industrialization, increasing number of states, the pill, smaller families, women working, etc,etc.etc. The creativity of the country has always involved change and adaptation, not clinging to and enforcing on others the "old" values. The Constitution has served us well throughout.

None of those things were cultural changes, just developments of existing trends.

.

 

[Olde Europe]

My first shot--

The cultural paradigm of the country has always changed, sometimes gradually and sometimes quite quickly, i.e. ending slavery, westward movement, women voting, the railroad, the dust bowl, movement from farms to cities, industrialization, increasing number of states, the pill, smaller families, women working, etc,etc.etc. The creativity of the country has always involved change and adaptation, not clinging to and enforcing on others the "old" values. The Constitution has served us well throughout.

None of those things were cultural changes, just developments of existing trends.

Can you define the terms as you use them, so as to make that distinction clear?

For to me it seems, all or most of the items mentioned denote historical or societal developments that either went hand in hand with, or entailed, cultural changes. Obviously, a society adjusting to seeing their colored citizens as equals is a development, but society also undergoes a culture change insofar as the institutional, legal racism of times prior was part of the nation's culture, and is increasingly less so. Same goes with with women no longer seen and treated as chattel, and gaining independence from fathers / husbands. Pill and more libertine sexual mores, railroad and experiencing / becoming more aware of a wider world, arguably entailing a wider worldview, and so on.

 

[Unkotare]

My first shot--

The cultural paradigm of the country has always changed, sometimes gradually and sometimes quite quickly, i.e. ending slavery, westward movement, women voting, the railroad, the dust bowl, movement from farms to cities, industrialization, increasing number of states, the pill, smaller families, women working, etc,etc.etc. The creativity of the country has always involved change and adaptation, not clinging to and enforcing on others the "old" values. The Constitution has served us well throughout.

Ending slavery was not a cultural change, it was a cultural development.

 

[Unkotare]

My first shot--

The cultural paradigm of the country has always changed, sometimes gradually and sometimes quite quickly, i.e. ending slavery, westward movement, women voting, the railroad, the dust bowl, movement from farms to cities, industrialization, increasing number of states, the pill, smaller families, women working, etc,etc.etc. The creativity of the country has always involved change and adaptation, not clinging to and enforcing on others the "old" values. The Constitution has served us well throughout.

Westward movement was most certainly not a cultural change. Americans had been moving westward ever since they landed on the east coast of the continent.

 

[Olde Europe]

Westward movement was most certainly not a cultural change. Americans had been moving westward ever since they landed on the east coast of the continent.

Yes, agreed. However, adopting the enterprising, pioneering, conquering spirit that went with that westward movement and still pervades the national narrative represents cultural change.

 

[Unkotare]

Westward movement was most certainly not a cultural change. Americans had been moving westward ever since they landed on the east coast of the continent.

Yes, agreed. However, adopting the enterprising, pioneering, conquering spirit that went with that westward movement and still pervades the national narrative represents cultural change.

That spirit was always there. No change.

 

[Foxfyre]

The right however does not control the unions, including the national teachers' union, is mostly unwelcome in academics theses days, is mostly unwelcome in most scientific institutions, is mostly unwelcome in the entertainment industry, does not control ANY of the major social media entities, and is poorly represented among the mainstream media. That gives the angry, vindictive (i.e. extremist) left a much MUCH larger forum and MUCH more power to distribute that anger and vindictiveness than what the more extremist right has access to.

That the right is seen as having any voice at all is pretty remarkable but because so many respond to the values and agenda of the right, that also speaks to its importance in the American culture.

That the Left fails to see, understand, or appreciate that has been affecting results at the ballot box, at least until now. We'll see how it goes in November.

But it definitely has had a negative effect on our culture.

I really don't understand the reasoning behind some of your points. When you talk of the right and left, both sides can be subdivided into R/L politicians, R/L media and the masses of R/L people, etc. I don't know if you distinguish between them or not. I'm middle left, and I believe some principles of both R and L. Nobody here sees the middle ground..

I am able to engage in friendly conversation on principles with strong conservatives in real life, but when I see posts like #55 above, I see that debate on this forum is futile. I think that you are seeing things too much in black and white. My feeling is that the left and right masses are being controlled by the wealthy -- lobbyists, heavy donors, mega-corporations. To me citizens United is a tragedy, and the name is even ironic. Both R and L masses of people should demand that money be taken out of politics.

Edit: sorry I posted this before I saw the previous post.

When I talk of R and L in this context I am not speaking of individuals or political parties but rather the forces that shape a culture.

The cultural/political/social right is much more likely to embrace traditional values that they believe to be beneficial to society as a whole and perhaps even essential for a representative republic such as ours to be successful. Our Founding Fathers were fairly unified in their belief that the U.S. Constitution that they signed and that would be ratified would work for a moral and religious people and no other.

But the American left as we know it in modern times does not often agree with much of the American right as we know it in modern times as being either moral or beneficial. And that has created and continues to create significant shifts in cultural paradigms as well as create a massive divide between culturally warring sectors.

In the 1960's the Hippies or Flower Children, those who would become the core of the modern American left, were the first of any generation in any country to completely reject the values of the previous generation. Now almost 60 years later as those people moved into, took control of, and mentored others like themselves in the media, education, scientific institutions, and politics, the American culture is much different than it was in the 1950's and 1960's. We see it in the in textbooks, in reshaping history, in art, media, and forceful attempts to silence, punish, control dissenters.

Some of the change is beneficial and/or non consequential. And some of it the remaining cultural class on the right sees as disastrous, harmful, hurtful, and sometimes even evil. Just as many on the left see culture promoted by the right as wrong and/or hateful and/or evil.

And until we as a nation pronounce everybody's right to be heard without being damned, punished, ostracized, destroyed etc. and seek compromise and constructive changes in our approach to it, we will not narrow that divide.

 

[Foxfyre]

At some point even the Electoral College won't matter as the population centers in each state will force those EC votes go to Democrats. The original concept of the U.S. as a collection of states is dying, or already dead. We were supposed to be able to vote with our feet, and move to a state that reflected our political, social, and economic views. Metro areas are forcing a homogenization of the U.S. to reflect URBAN, Progressive values.

Yes the soft tyranny (fascism) of Political Correctness is damaging as people fear losing their jobs if they speak their minds. So, we now live in an Orwellian society where hate speech, and possibly hate thought will become illegal. Who gets to define what is hate speech? The Media, and Government bureaucrats. Both very Progressive.

That is the problem when a society gives power to those who can dictate what is proper thought or belief or speech. The most important purpose of the U.S. Constitution as endorsed by the Founders was to not give anybody in the central government the power to dictate what we are allowed to write, say, think, believe lest there be consequences. The first people arriving on the east coast risked everything they had, including their lives, to escape governments, sometimes in tandem with an authoritarian Church, who had such power.

The current trend of organized groups determined to silence/coerce/destroy those with whom they disagree and destroy or remake the institutions into something politically correct is perhaps the most deadly and damning to liberty of any of the cultural shifts we have seen in modern times.

 

[Wuwei]

When I talk of R and L in this context I am not speaking of individuals or political parties but rather the forces that shape a culture.

The cultural/political/social right is much more likely to embrace traditional values that they believe to be beneficial to society as a whole and perhaps even essential for a representative republic such as ours to be successful. Our Founding Fathers were fairly unified in their belief that the U.S. Constitution that they signed and that would be ratified would work for a moral and religious people and no other.

But the American left as we know it in modern times does not often agree with much of the American right as we know it in modern times as being either moral or beneficial. And that has created and continues to create significant shifts in cultural paradigms as well as create a massive divide between culturally warring sectors.

In the 1960's the Hippies or Flower Children, those who would become the core of the modern American left, were the first of any generation in any country to completely reject the values of the previous generation. Now almost 60 years later as those people moved into, took control of, and mentored others like themselves in the media, education, scientific institutions, and politics, the American culture is much different than it was in the 1950's and 1960's. We see it in the in textbooks, in reshaping history, in art, media, and forceful attempts to silence, punish, control dissenters.

Some of the change is beneficial and/or non consequential. And some of it the remaining cultural class on the right sees as disastrous, harmful, hurtful, and sometimes even evil. Just as many on the left see culture promoted by the right as wrong and/or hateful and/or evil.

And until we as a nation pronounce everybody's right to be heard without being damned, punished, ostracized, destroyed etc. and seek compromise and constructive changes in our approach to it, we will not narrow that divide.

Ah yes, the Hippie movement. I was a working student at a lab in Berkeley CA, during the height of the Hippie movement in the 60's. I lived near campus, the epicenter of riots, street fires, throwing rocks at police cars, tear gas all over. There are a lot of liberal snowflakes who are getting a stronger voice in politics. But they are not from the hippie era although their parents or grand parents may have been Flower Children.

I don't see it your way, that the hippie movement took over American culture in any significant way. You mention major aspects of the culture – education, media, science and especially politics. I obviously don't see what you see. What I see, as I said before, is that the plutocracy in government and Fox News is leading the culture of the right. MSNBC and CNN are doing the same with the left. The major part the other media are more central.

As far as your last paragraph, I think the divide has a tremendous momentum in widening and I see no hope in my lifetime that people will seek compromise. But I have no real feel for the pulse of all America, only the few that make big splashes in the media – removing Confederate statues, shooting up schools, etc.. There is no single culture in America. There are two, the right and the left.

 

[Foxfyre]

When I talk of R and L in this context I am not speaking of individuals or political parties but rather the forces that shape a culture.

The cultural/political/social right is much more likely to embrace traditional values that they believe to be beneficial to society as a whole and perhaps even essential for a representative republic such as ours to be successful. Our Founding Fathers were fairly unified in their belief that the U.S. Constitution that they signed and that would be ratified would work for a moral and religious people and no other.

But the American left as we know it in modern times does not often agree with much of the American right as we know it in modern times as being either moral or beneficial. And that has created and continues to create significant shifts in cultural paradigms as well as create a massive divide between culturally warring sectors.

In the 1960's the Hippies or Flower Children, those who would become the core of the modern American left, were the first of any generation in any country to completely reject the values of the previous generation. Now almost 60 years later as those people moved into, took control of, and mentored others like themselves in the media, education, scientific institutions, and politics, the American culture is much different than it was in the 1950's and 1960's. We see it in the in textbooks, in reshaping history, in art, media, and forceful attempts to silence, punish, control dissenters.

Some of the change is beneficial and/or non consequential. And some of it the remaining cultural class on the right sees as disastrous, harmful, hurtful, and sometimes even evil. Just as many on the left see culture promoted by the right as wrong and/or hateful and/or evil.

And until we as a nation pronounce everybody's right to be heard without being damned, punished, ostracized, destroyed etc. and seek compromise and constructive changes in our approach to it, we will not narrow that divide.

Ah yes, the Hippie movement. I was a working student at a lab in Berkeley CA, during the height of the Hippie movement in the 60's. I lived near campus, the epicenter of riots, street fires, throwing rocks at police cars, tear gas all over. There are a lot of liberal snowflakes who are getting a stronger voice in politics. But they are not from the hippie era although their parents or grand parents may have been Flower Children.

I don't see it your way, that the hippie movement took over American culture in any significant way. You mention major aspects of the culture – education, media, science and especially politics. I obviously don't see what you see. What I see, as I said before, is that the plutocracy in government and Fox News is leading the culture of the right. MSNBC and CNN are doing the same with the left. The major part the other media are more central.

As far as your last paragraph, I think the divide has a tremendous momentum in widening and I see no hope in my lifetime that people will seek compromise. But I have no real feel for the pulse of all America, only the few that make big splashes in the media – removing Confederate statues, shooting up schools, etc.. There is no single culture in America. There are two, the right and the left.

I don't require anybody see it the way I do, but I have studied this somewhat in depth looking at it from both the aspect of what others have researched and my own experience. And given absolutely no evidence to the contrary, I'll have to stick by my post.

I am not saying that it was the bomb and rock throwers and vandals and other violent protesters who took over those institutions most likely to change public opinion about things. But it was those emerging from the rebellion who were certain they could have a part in rejecting the old and creating a brand new world who were the catalyst for a monumental cultural shift.

So they chose to major in journalism/media, in education, in various scientific fields, in curricula that would prepare them to manage the nation's institutions, in entertainment that has always had affect on public opinion. Some went into the ministry where you find maybe the largest cultural divide. You have those denominations that still focus on bringing people to God and living a righteous life and those that focus on radical social change and justice. These sadly consider each other to be misguided if not actually evil.

The focus in education shifted from teaching the basics in core subjects, how to reason, how to learn, how to utilize critical thinking as the schools became more institutions of indoctrination. Many universities became so focused on progressive and liberal concepts that safe spaces are provided to protect students from having to consider any different concepts or thought.

I was working in the media when it changed--changed to the point that I no longer felt I belonged there. The ethics were stretched to the point it bothered me. And when, as a reporter, I was no longer charged with the duty to report what happened but the most important thing was to get on the record how the people FELT about it, I quietly left.

And as those in those societal institutions naturally sought out and mentored others like themselves, the phenomenon became stronger and more entrenched so that the conservative rarely finds a comfortable place and more often is not welcome at all.

 

[Wuwei]

But it was those emerging from the rebellion who were certain they could have a part in rejecting the old and creating a brand new world who were the catalyst for a monumental cultural shift.

So they chose to major in journalism/media, in education, in various scientific fields, in curricula that would prepare them to manage the nation's institutions, in entertainment that has always had affect on public opinion. Some went into the ministry where you find maybe the largest cultural divide. You have those denominations that still focus on bringing people to God and living a righteous life and those that focus on radical social change and justice. These sadly consider each other to be misguided if not actually evil.

You make it sound like a concerted effort by liberals to engage in occupations that would allow them to change American culture. Perhaps it is really because liberals do what they enjoy and the same with conservatives. I went into physics and math because I was passionate about it.

Psychiatrist Gail Saltz has an interesting slant on this.
New Studies Show Liberals and Conservatives Have Different Brain Structures

"... what’s been found in several studies is that liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate gyrus. That is an area that is responsible for taking in new information and that impact of the new information on decision making or choices. Conservatives tended on the whole to have a larger right amygdala. Amygdala being a deeper brain structure that processes more emotional information—specifically fear-based information," ​

According to her research the above correlation of brain structures and political slant are 69.5% accurate. There may be nothing to the study, but it does point out that culture of different demographics can be due to some sort of internal genetic force that is difficult to change.