Here the problem is that the success stories simply aren't taken into account. Prosperous multiethnic countries simply don't have any kind of power sharing by ethnic lines. They are not viewed as first and foremost multiethnic countries. The political fault lines are drawn by the ordinary left-right axis and not by ethnicity. We simply don't even consider them so multiethnic as they are. Think about Belgium, Canada or my country. Then again Italy, German and France could also be seen this way too, as they are composed of multiple earlier countries.However, the same body of research shows that explicit ethnic power sharing agreements preform very poorly at reducing the risk of further disintegration.
Anyhow, I think it's overly pessimistic to think that multi-ethnic states are doomed to faliure by their borders. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I have found no source that supports a claim that "Europeans" will be a minority in Europe by 2080. That seems like an extreme and highly questionable prediction.
Strong states disappeared partially because of excessive european - in this case British and French, meddling though. The conflict over the middle east extends well beyond merely the Sikes-Picot agreement. Britain and France fought a veritable cold war in the middle east until the 1950s.
A typical way to get statistic models that show Europeans becoming a minority is simply use the peak migration levels or extrapolate past increase trend in migration to the future. Then you can get these statistics showing that Europe's population will change. Of course, these models didn't take into account that EU would decrease immigration as it did. Or later that a pandemic happened.Because that isn't projected, Europe is much larger than the three largest Western European nations' populations combined. The French government doesn't collect data on race, so extrapolations are all by third parties. — Count Timothy von Icarus
For example the media, let's say. Usually you don't have great scoop that the things are getting back to normal. (Here the pandemic has been an exception.) No news is good news, as the saying goes.Typical? I don't know, maybe for alarmist outlets claiming — Count Timothy von Icarus
Models projecting a century out are subject to all sorts of problems, but for the last two decades they have stayed fairly on track. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Because that isn't projected, Europe is much larger than the three largest Western European nations' populations combined. The French government doesn't collect data on race, so extrapolations are all by third parties. The topic itself is considered politically sensitive. — Count Timothy von Icarus
However, the UK is more open to discussion, and the ONS has been predicting Europeans would be a minority in the UK in the 21st century for 20 years, with confidence intervals generally dipping more than they increase:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/when-britain-becomes-majority-minority
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world
Already 33% of births in the UK have at least one foreign born parent, although that includes European migrants. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is not an accurate accounting of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It had long been in a state of decay pre-1914, similar to the Austrian Empire. When it was dissolved, there was no existing state structure that European meddling could make disappear. A more appropriate argument might be that there was a power vacuum that the European states failed to sufficiently fill, although it's really unclear that they could have filled it if they wanted to.
I mean, what are you claiming existed outside the Ottoman administration for the Europeans to undermine?
In any event, the former Ottoman states did better than the former Austrian ones did initially. The hallmark instability came after WWII. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If your theory is jettisoning the sciences under the theory that they are inheritally corrupted by power relations, and it's raison d'etre is addressing political concerns, then turning off voters or developing anti-racism interventions that increase racism seem like fairly large problems. A politically unpopular system of thought that focuses on epistemology or aesthetics doesn't have the same issue of being self defeating.
Critical theory, by definition, puts its moral claims ahead of the sciences' epistemological claims. — Count Timothy von Icarus
is prima facie absurd
This doesn't necissarily mean starting with the assumption that you're correct, but it's certainly not welcoming of the same kind of skepticism that scientific inquiry has at its heart. This is, to my mind, a pretty major flaw for a theory that wants to shape public policy, given how counter intuitively the externalities of many policies tend to do the exact opposite of what policymakers were intending to accomplish.
To use an example that's unrelated to race: The idea that the basic structure of the universe ought to "make sense" and be "aesthetically pleasing" has arguably had a large influence over basic research in physics. Critics say this has lead to one-sided interpretations of data and contributed to the stagnation in the field.
Critical Theory
First published Tue Mar 8, 2005
Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246])
Once reason was thoroughly socialized and made historical, historicist skepticism emerged at the same time, attempting to relativize philosophical claims about norms and reason to historically and culturally variable forms of life. Critical Theory developed a nonskeptical version of this conception, linking philosophy closely to the human and social sciences. In so doing, it can link empirical and interpretive social science to normative claims of truth, morality and justice, traditionally the purview of philosophy.
By reversal, crits interpret history as a process that creates power as the construction of a powerful elite.
Both articles mention non-European majorities in the UK based on government statistics, the more recent in the subtitle.
We're off track and I'm done with the:" I'll implying every last fact you put out is highly questionable and needs a citation," game. I've provided numerous sources, but I'm not going to bother if your method of argument is claiming I'm being disingenuous on every last fact claim, when I've demonstrated that I'm not by following up on the first several, particularly if they're just going to be dismissed anyhow. — Count Timothy von Icarus
People in general underestimate the scale of the shift. The major European nations, France, the UK, and Germany, will all be minority European by around 2080. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Right, and said bias is to be sought out, and quantified. This is a fairly common target for publication, an analysis of the field and its biases themselves.
It's funny that you use that example, because projecting such purpose on to research findings is an explicit aim of critical theory. In science, it is, as you rightly describe, a bug, in critical theory it is a feature. — Count Timothy von Icarus
:up: :100:...rather nebulous concepts... — Apollodorus
... I'd like to introduce you to the human race. — James Riley
Good luck with that. Nobody hasn't actually defended the theory itself. The "defending" comments, if you can say there are those, usually make the point that those making a critique about the theory in the first place are just wrong (in so many other ways).I would ask anyone who feels a strong inclination toward Critical Theory to give an explicit definition/s of what exactly is meant by Power and how Power can manifest. — I like sushi
Well. let's see if you get an answer.Asking for a definition for the sake of clarity isn't asking someone to defend anything. — I like sushi
I still believe that the reason for non-Asian minorities' average underperformance is likely to be genes rather than "systemic racism" — Xanatos
The amount of electron shells and the number of protons in an chemical element can be stated as an obvious difference as the elements do differ from each other in this way. I guess calling this scientific observation an 'social construct' simply means that absolutely everything that humans have thought of scientifically is a 'social construct'. Of course with that definition the word is utterly useless.Should we also reject the periodic table because it is a social construct? — Xanatos
Of course with that definition the word is utterly useless. — ssu
For a "social construct"?I guess you don't care to offer up any definition? — I like sushi
A social construct is something that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction. It exists because humans agree that it exists.
Because of their Finno-Ugric language, the Finns were initially classified by Nazi racial experts as a people unrelated to the other Nordic countries, in spite of a long history of political unity with Sweden. As a result, the Swedish-speaking minority of Finland was favored at first over Finnish speakers for recruitment into the Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS because they were categorically considered part of the "Nordic race".
Owing to Finland's substantial military contribution on the northern flank of the Eastern Front of World War II, Hitler decreed in November 1942 that "from now on Finland and the Finnish people be treated and designated as a Nordic state and a Nordic people", which he considered one of the highest compliments that the Nazi government could bestow upon another country.
Sorry, but I can imagine that even without humans around, the chemical elements what we call "hydrogen" or "gold" will exist and have their peculiar characters. — ssu
That we describe the differences between the elements by using the atomic model and have a periodic table doesn't change their existence. — ssu
Which is rather silly. Basically you hear this reasoning when someone is argued into a corner or something.And this is where I see some making the leap that you CANNOT imagine because you're human, so if there were no humans they'd be no science nor any 'Periodic Table' (trust me I've seen this kind of argument used). — I like sushi
Genetics is another thing, really. Racial theories and eugenics have been right from the start political and a "social construct".There are some telling genetic differences between certain groups. Some medicines are tailor made to help such groups. Sadly the historical scientific beliefs/ideas surrounding 'race' and the advent of Darwin led to a whole lot of uninformed speculation that was considered 'objective' at the time. — I like sushi
↪James Riley Should we also reject the periodic table because it is a social construct? — Xanatos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.