Sentenal

Apr 28 2009, 04:45 PM

I'm not sure I completely understand the topic.

Is it asking: If there is a culture conflict between a "main steam culture" and a "minority culture", should it be the minority culture that is preserved and valued?

If that is the question, hell no. The majority shouldn't be forced to bend their entire culture to a minority if a conflict arises. If that was the case, the majority would have to bend over for the smallest group of people, in terms of culture and values.

Thats not to say that there shouldn't be minority cultures in a country. Just simply if there was ever a conflict between the two (where one must change), the majority should win out... Because it is the majority.

Askio

Apr 29 2009, 08:46 PM

Sentenal

Apr 28 2009, 04:45 PM

I'm not sure I completely understand the topic.

Is it asking: If there is a culture conflict between a "main steam culture" and a "minority culture", should it be the minority culture that is preserved and valued?

If that is the question, hell no. The majority shouldn't be forced to bend their entire culture to a minority if a conflict arises. If that was the case, the majority would have to bend over for the smallest group of people, in terms of culture and values.

Thats not to say that there shouldn't be minority cultures in a country. Just simply if there was ever a conflict between the two (where one must change), the majority should win out... Because it is the majority.

Thats what I was thinking. There is no reasonable way a minority, or virtually any real society, would put an individuals needs or a small groups above the majority unless it was a dictatorship, old monarchy, or other negative government body that abused or felt itself above the people to begin with. Examples being the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Medieval France(and virtually every other country back then) etc. There are examples of a general culture that promotes consistent values and laws to go by having minority cultures thrive, or at least not threatened. America is one that has constantly changing minorities, Muslim societies that allowed people to practice other religions even if they did have to pay a tax.


That being said, its safe to assume to say this is an undemocratic standard to try to achieve.


But...I have to argue both sides. So does anyone have any ideas for the resolution on the AFF?

Reaver

May 1 2009, 04:25 PM

I'm with the affirmative here, if only for the reason of culture.

Preserving the minority culture doesn't mean eliminating the majority culture or making it "bend" to fit a different set of social constraints. For example, take the example of Muslim girls in schools. They should be allowed to wear headscarves in class if they so wish because it's a matter of putting their cultural beliefs into practice. Nobody else has to wear headscarves, nobody has to believe in Islam, but we permit somebody else to further enact their set of beliefs with no harm to the majority.

Once this extends to government policy, however, we have to rework how we think about the issue entirely because issues of "majority" and "minority" rule don't necessarily yield the most fair answer. If we go with favoring the voice of the majority, we could legitimately enact slavery. On the other hand, listening to the views of solely the minority would result in unfair shifts to societal equilibria with real consequences which may even extend into the economic, tangible realm.

Quote:

 

Preserving the minority culture doesn't mean eliminating the majority culture or making it "bend" to fit a different set of social constraints. For example, take the example of Muslim girls in schools. They should be allowed to wear headscarves in class if they so wish because it's a matter of putting their cultural beliefs into practice. Nobody else has to wear headscarves, nobody has to believe in Islam, but we permit somebody else to further enact their set of beliefs with no harm to the majority.

Sentenal

 

I don't think the question is about whether to preserve a minority culture, or force it to assimilate. I think the question is, if there is a conflict between one of the two cultures, and one must change, should the minority culture be the one that is protected? Obviously the answer to this should be no.

Reaver

May 2 2009, 01:33 PM

Sentenal

 

I don't think the question is about whether to preserve a minority culture, or force it to assimilate. I think the question is, if there is a conflict between one of the two cultures, and one must change, should the minority culture be the one that is protected? Obviously the answer to this should be no.

This seems unlikely, however, because it merely suggests "preservation". The resolution does not imply destruction of the other culture.

Quote:

 

Preserving the minority culture doesn't mean eliminating the majority culture or making it "bend" to fit a different set of social constraints. For example, take the example of Muslim girls in schools. They should be allowed to wear headscarves in class if they so wish because it's a matter of putting their cultural beliefs into practice. Nobody else has to wear headscarves, nobody has to believe in Islam, but we permit somebody else to further enact their set of beliefs with no harm to the majority.

Quote:

 

Take in France for example, where Muslim girls are not allowed to wear headscarves in school. That, in my opinion, is an unacceptable infringement on their rights.