There are no pure cultures – we have always been global(aeon.co)
aeon.co
There are no pure cultures – we have always been global
https://aeon.co/essays/there-are-no-pure-cultures-we-have-always-been-global
54 comments
Do we need a new fallacy for this? I think this is just a particular case of the fallacy of the beard.
I don't think it's the same as the fallacy of the beard when there's no continuum between the two examples, which will always be the case if the analogy between them is false. If it is the case that globalization is really just an extension of trading between hunter-gatherer tribes, then I agree with you. To me, they're two different things. If I take my glasses off and squint, they sort of look alike in a poetic way, but they're not actually the same, differing only in scale.
To me it seems like the author is stating a true observation, but they are ignoring the pace at which the phenomena is evolving given the technical advances mentioned in the article, especially of transportation and communication. The pace of cultural change matters greatly as large, quick shifts in culture are usually accompanied by massive resistance/wars, increased racism, genocides, autocracy, and a general desire to slow things down no matter what it takes.
The claim is "there are no pure cultures".
Is this claim falsifiable? Yes. One could disprove it by demonstrating a culture that never had any mixing.
This claim is very different from the claim "nothing new about that", which is a classic straw man.
The author offers some evidence for all this mixing. One can argue about the quantitatively nature of it, but not the qualitative. Human cultures qualify for what can be described as intermixed. Again, all we need to do to disprove this claim is present one pure culture.
So, yeah, there's a lot that changed from newspapers to phones, but there is also an undeniable trend that connects them. That's why it's not a falacy per se, but similar claims could be falacious. Trying to come up with a falsifiable scenario for the _specific claim_ is what settles the matter.
Is this claim falsifiable? Yes. One could disprove it by demonstrating a culture that never had any mixing.
This claim is very different from the claim "nothing new about that", which is a classic straw man.
The author offers some evidence for all this mixing. One can argue about the quantitatively nature of it, but not the qualitative. Human cultures qualify for what can be described as intermixed. Again, all we need to do to disprove this claim is present one pure culture.
So, yeah, there's a lot that changed from newspapers to phones, but there is also an undeniable trend that connects them. That's why it's not a falacy per se, but similar claims could be falacious. Trying to come up with a falsifiable scenario for the _specific claim_ is what settles the matter.
> all we need to do to disprove this claim is present one pure culture.
Define "pure culture". This seems to be mostly different interpretations about what that means.
If someone says that no water is pure so this polluted water is fine, that is a fallacy.
Define "pure culture". This seems to be mostly different interpretations about what that means.
If someone says that no water is pure so this polluted water is fine, that is a fallacy.
I can't define what "pure culture" is. I've never seen one.
The people claiming that pure cultures exist that must try to define it. The onus is on them, not me.
The people claiming that pure cultures exist that must try to define it. The onus is on them, not me.
Back in the 17th century a bunch of hardline Protestants in the Netherlands got upset that Catholics and Jews were allowed to practice their religion.
The rich people who ran Amsterdam explained that after death god would sort them all out so they didn't have to.
I always admired their practicality.
Semi related but one thing that I've always found fascinating was the peace lines[1] in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. You often hear about religious conflicts in the history books but it's wild to see remnants of that in the modern world.
I live in the US and for us the concept of two Christian factions being in conflict is just so foreign. You drive around just about anywhere in the US and you will come across Protestant churches right next to Catholic ones.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_lines
I live in the US and for us the concept of two Christian factions being in conflict is just so foreign. You drive around just about anywhere in the US and you will come across Protestant churches right next to Catholic ones.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_lines
> I live in the US and for us the concept of two Christian factions being in conflict is just so foreign.
Foreign? Christian factionalism is deeply ingrained in american culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United...
Mostly directed towards catholics and mormons.
> You drive around just about anywhere in the US and you will come across Protestant churches right next to Catholic ones.
Anywhere? No. Most catholic churches are in catholic areas and protestant churches in protestant areas. And I'm pretty sure most protestant churches official stance is that the catholic pope is the anti-christ. At least it was when I went to church not too long ago. Not sure what the catholic stance is nor do I really care.
Also, these "religious" conflicts are deep down ethnic or political conflicts. We don't have religious factionalism because our politics is pretty much controlled by one political party (republican-democratic party). Once that political stranglehold gets broken, we'll probably ethnic and religious factionalism.
Foreign? Christian factionalism is deeply ingrained in american culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United...
Mostly directed towards catholics and mormons.
> You drive around just about anywhere in the US and you will come across Protestant churches right next to Catholic ones.
Anywhere? No. Most catholic churches are in catholic areas and protestant churches in protestant areas. And I'm pretty sure most protestant churches official stance is that the catholic pope is the anti-christ. At least it was when I went to church not too long ago. Not sure what the catholic stance is nor do I really care.
Also, these "religious" conflicts are deep down ethnic or political conflicts. We don't have religious factionalism because our politics is pretty much controlled by one political party (republican-democratic party). Once that political stranglehold gets broken, we'll probably ethnic and religious factionalism.
I think it is misleading to categorise the conflict in Northern Ireland as religious. There are two different ethnic/national identity groups that happen to be predominantly of different Christian denominations.
However, there are atheists and protestants ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Irish_nationalists#... ) in the "catholic" IRA, and the IRA killed British soldiers regardless of religion (and there are lots of Catholics in the British army) etc. and British Catholics were not often sympathetic to the IRA (nor Catholics from the rest of the world) and we were just as likely to get bombed by them as anyone else in Britain.
A book I have on Irish history quotes a study that found that the more often Catholics in the Republic went to church the less likely they were to support Sinn Fein (the political party linked to the IRA).
However, there are atheists and protestants ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Irish_nationalists#... ) in the "catholic" IRA, and the IRA killed British soldiers regardless of religion (and there are lots of Catholics in the British army) etc. and British Catholics were not often sympathetic to the IRA (nor Catholics from the rest of the world) and we were just as likely to get bombed by them as anyone else in Britain.
A book I have on Irish history quotes a study that found that the more often Catholics in the Republic went to church the less likely they were to support Sinn Fein (the political party linked to the IRA).
Fascinating. I didn't know these existed and find the naming to intrigue me the most.
I've been saying lately that the resolution of conflict is not peace, the resolution of conflict is love.
It seems putting walls up is a way to avoid conflict, or try to avoid it, but I wonder if the conflict just festers, and the actual resolution would be unity.
Except the challenge can be it just takes a few people in a group to say "if you love them, you don't love us" and thus we run away into our corners, pretending that we don't love everyone.
I've been saying lately that the resolution of conflict is not peace, the resolution of conflict is love.
It seems putting walls up is a way to avoid conflict, or try to avoid it, but I wonder if the conflict just festers, and the actual resolution would be unity.
Except the challenge can be it just takes a few people in a group to say "if you love them, you don't love us" and thus we run away into our corners, pretending that we don't love everyone.
Religious conflicts, including big name ones, have always been political conflicts between groups that happen to have different religions.
These days there is still political conflict, but there's less contrast between each side's religious makeup. Therefore the conflict won't appear to be a religious conflict.
These days there is still political conflict, but there's less contrast between each side's religious makeup. Therefore the conflict won't appear to be a religious conflict.
Maybe, but the US hasn't been around long enough to get the really gnarly sectarian feuds going I suppose. Give it time. If there's one thing humans are good at its breaking social structures in favor of petty tribalism.
Doesn't even have to be sectarian -- we are witnessing US/Europe schism happening right now and it can cut very deep.
Of course, Arnaud Amalric said the same thing to rather different effect.
A meaningless assertion? We've all been human and shared some values and ideals, even crafts and rituals. That's culture, for sure.
But we've always had clearly distinguishable systems, and seen as a whole then cultures have been separate and unique.
But we've always had clearly distinguishable systems, and seen as a whole then cultures have been separate and unique.
> we've always had clearly distinguishable systems
What makes you say that? My impression is that people perceive it as they typically perceive categories and reality - they think it's simple. When you actually look at it, it's a mess. Culture is very complex, so it is even more of a mess.
Culture also changes constantly, so what you define today is different tomorrow.
> cultures have been separate and unique
That does not at all match what I know or experience. I suppose theoretically, a small isolated village might be separate and unique.
What makes you say that? My impression is that people perceive it as they typically perceive categories and reality - they think it's simple. When you actually look at it, it's a mess. Culture is very complex, so it is even more of a mess.
Culture also changes constantly, so what you define today is different tomorrow.
> cultures have been separate and unique
That does not at all match what I know or experience. I suppose theoretically, a small isolated village might be separate and unique.
It just depends when you want to draw the line of “this is beginning of a new culture”
Exactly. National culture, family culture, regional culture, gender culture, etc etc, so many ways to group behaviors of humans into categories and forget that within every category, there are so many differences, and across categories there can be so many similarities.
I don't think you have any real choice but to draw it where the members of each culture think it belongs.
You can, I suppose, bite the bullet and say that policing the lines between cultures is fundamentally illegitimate. But even people like the author who talk a good game about opposing "racialist worldviews" are usually not willing to go that far. Many cultures across the world - Frisians, Sami, Inuit, etc. - depend on that policing to survive and would quickly be assimilated and cease to exist if they decided it was wrong.
You can, I suppose, bite the bullet and say that policing the lines between cultures is fundamentally illegitimate. But even people like the author who talk a good game about opposing "racialist worldviews" are usually not willing to go that far. Many cultures across the world - Frisians, Sami, Inuit, etc. - depend on that policing to survive and would quickly be assimilated and cease to exist if they decided it was wrong.
I think there's a powerful point there: fear of assimilation.
Many groups seem to fight very hard to keep their culture pure, or at least to maintain the appearance of it. Afraid to lose valued cultural practices.
But then is it a wonder why we have division in the world?
There is a book that came out about castes (I saw the movie) and the first principle to maintaining a caste system was endogamy: only allowed to fall in love with people within one's group.
So if we can't love people outside our group, then well, we have division. I'd argue it leads to self-hatred, as we naturally love and to fight against it causes us to fight against ourselves, but that's a much deeper conversation.
Many groups seem to fight very hard to keep their culture pure, or at least to maintain the appearance of it. Afraid to lose valued cultural practices.
But then is it a wonder why we have division in the world?
There is a book that came out about castes (I saw the movie) and the first principle to maintaining a caste system was endogamy: only allowed to fall in love with people within one's group.
So if we can't love people outside our group, then well, we have division. I'd argue it leads to self-hatred, as we naturally love and to fight against it causes us to fight against ourselves, but that's a much deeper conversation.
As a member of an ethnic group that has almost disappeared through assimilation, I regret the loss of culture (much as not even reached my generation) but had no wish to marry within the group. I just want to pass on a few good things (like the bits I am familiar with of our cuisine).
I appreciate you sharing your story. I wonder how much, in assimilation, artifacts from other cultures remain, or fuse, with artifacts of the "main" culture or whatever we want to call it.
In other words, do the things from our culture disappear, or just appear to change shape but maintain many of the same structural elements?
What comes to mind are Greek gods with Roman names, or possibly the Easter bunny coming from an ancient pagan festival called Eostre [0].
[0]: https://www.thefield.co.uk/country-house/easter-eostre-24035
In other words, do the things from our culture disappear, or just appear to change shape but maintain many of the same structural elements?
What comes to mind are Greek gods with Roman names, or possibly the Easter bunny coming from an ancient pagan festival called Eostre [0].
[0]: https://www.thefield.co.uk/country-house/easter-eostre-24035
Subjective and wishy-washy framing. Sure, there's a "human culture" in that we all eat, sleep, etc. but it all depends on how you want to draw boundaries or frame the question of what culture _is_.
Ironic that they literally undermined their case before they even got to the article.
Look at the hero image at the top of the page. I know what you're thinking: "cultures are so intermingled that I can't tell if this is the Netherlands, China, or Congo."
Look at the hero image at the top of the page. I know what you're thinking: "cultures are so intermingled that I can't tell if this is the Netherlands, China, or Congo."
I think people are reading too much into the title—it's meant to be taken literally. It should also be obvious if you know anything about history; it's basically saying that we have always been a globalized civilization and our subjective definition of it is imaginary. And this is important because people really do believe in the idea that their culture is pure and free of outside influence.
It's also more about globalization than immigration, which would be obvious if you actually read it. Once again I am disappointed by the quality of the top comments on Hacker News.
It's also more about globalization than immigration, which would be obvious if you actually read it. Once again I am disappointed by the quality of the top comments on Hacker News.
The culture in Norway certainly wasn't global 80 years ago.
I'm begging you to pick up a history book.
80 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_Square_Christmas_t...
A little longer https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zjcxwty#zgpbg7h
80 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_Square_Christmas_t...
A little longer https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zjcxwty#zgpbg7h
The general culture, not what the 0.01% of government officials and aristocrats were involved in.
Norway was dirt poor and had no cultural influences affecting it.
Norway was dirt poor and had no cultural influences affecting it.
Ethnic and ideological purity drives have always seemed intolerant and bigoted. This seems to support that.
Well, there was one true part to it: Communist world fell apart and a huge number of people who were once locked in behind the Iron Curtain, were set free. To them, the change was very real.
I get what this article is trying to do, but it is likely to achieve the opposite. This is not going to succeed in pulling the wool over anyone's eyes, because it goes directly against most people's first-hand observed reality. To the people this is trying to convince, this will - rightfully - look like smartassery and dissembling.
You want people to be fine with immigration? Tell them why it is desirable for them personally instead of giving them a political opinion thinly disguised as a paternalizing history lesson.
This article directly reinforces about five different right-wing narratives.
You want people to be fine with immigration? Tell them why it is desirable for them personally instead of giving them a political opinion thinly disguised as a paternalizing history lesson.
This article directly reinforces about five different right-wing narratives.
The issue is the narrative that immigration is fine and desirable as if that was an universal truth and if immigration should therefore be encouraged as a matter of course.
I think this is a big mistake of some of "the left" to go down that route because it is not fact and people are increasingly pushing back against that narrative (judging by election results throughout Europe and US)
The topic does not have to be partisan as it touches on core aspects of society and national culture, which ought to be discussed and debatable in a non-partisan way.
My theory is that this an evolution over time of anti-racism movements that started (in Europe) mostly after WWII: immigration -> anti-racism -> accept diversity -> diversity is good -> promote diversity -> immigration is good -> promote immigration.
The topic does not have to be partisan as it touches on core aspects of society and national culture, which ought to be discussed and debatable in a non-partisan way.
My theory is that this an evolution over time of anti-racism movements that started (in Europe) mostly after WWII: immigration -> anti-racism -> accept diversity -> diversity is good -> promote diversity -> immigration is good -> promote immigration.
I was really disappointed of the article. This is obviously mental gymnastics to make immigration look better.
They should have done a report about the living situations in Syria (or insert bad country of your choice) and that would have created more acceptance for the people from there moving here.
They should have done a report about the living situations in Syria (or insert bad country of your choice) and that would have created more acceptance for the people from there moving here.
> You want people to be fine with immigration? Tell them why it is desirable for them personally
This is also problematic. Quite often surveys get results that on average people feel their life is improving and the average is sinking in an alarming way. I doubt Musk feels his income is threatened by an insufficiently Aryan immigrant in Germany.
(If I have to go "give onto him' on X to use facts like Musk is associated with German neo Nazis while he can make up whatever false narrative to power he likes then it seems to me like we have found his real goal. Look up his friend's meeting in Austria.)
This is also problematic. Quite often surveys get results that on average people feel their life is improving and the average is sinking in an alarming way. I doubt Musk feels his income is threatened by an insufficiently Aryan immigrant in Germany.
(If I have to go "give onto him' on X to use facts like Musk is associated with German neo Nazis while he can make up whatever false narrative to power he likes then it seems to me like we have found his real goal. Look up his friend's meeting in Austria.)
>This article directly reinforces about five different right-wing narratives.
I didn't see that. Which ones?
I didn't see that. Which ones?
Here's a selection:
- "The left" will try to deceive and deny reality even in the face of hard numbers. Obviously way more people migrate nowadays than historically. Most of the historic migration was also between geographically close, similar cultures.
- "The left" is elitist, paternalizing, and kind of cringe. Academic sounding writing and quoting philosophers that have been dead for over 2000 years will not exactly endear you.
- "The left" is out of touch and will talk about anything rather than address the problems people actually face. People struggle to afford rent, struggle to maintain their standard of living, and are worried about their income and crime. This article is comically far removed from addressing that.
- "The left" will try to deceive and deny reality even in the face of hard numbers. Obviously way more people migrate nowadays than historically. Most of the historic migration was also between geographically close, similar cultures.
- "The left" is elitist, paternalizing, and kind of cringe. Academic sounding writing and quoting philosophers that have been dead for over 2000 years will not exactly endear you.
- "The left" is out of touch and will talk about anything rather than address the problems people actually face. People struggle to afford rent, struggle to maintain their standard of living, and are worried about their income and crime. This article is comically far removed from addressing that.
> Obviously way more people migrate nowadays than historically.
The peak for population movement globally was probably after WW II. Partition of India alone is like 20 million people migrating in 1947. Europe was almost as bad with tens of millions of people suddenly on the wrong side of redrawn borders.
Similarly here in Canada our immigration levels per capita which are very high - maybe too high - are still at a rate similar to that of most of the late 19th century.
So I am not actually sure that assertion is true.
The peak for population movement globally was probably after WW II. Partition of India alone is like 20 million people migrating in 1947. Europe was almost as bad with tens of millions of people suddenly on the wrong side of redrawn borders.
Similarly here in Canada our immigration levels per capita which are very high - maybe too high - are still at a rate similar to that of most of the late 19th century.
So I am not actually sure that assertion is true.
On the time scales the article uses (going back all the way to the neolithic age), all of the examples you used are essentially the present.
Also the first thing that comes to mind for many people when they think "migrant" will partly be those post-WW2 migrants you are speaking of (even if now in second or third generation). The migration events you mention are very fresh, especially in people's minds.
Until very recently, the first thing that came to any German's mind when migration was mentioned would have likely been a Turk (migrating here after WW2). Only recently Syrians and Ukrainians started warring for that headspace.
Also the first thing that comes to mind for many people when they think "migrant" will partly be those post-WW2 migrants you are speaking of (even if now in second or third generation). The migration events you mention are very fresh, especially in people's minds.
Until very recently, the first thing that came to any German's mind when migration was mentioned would have likely been a Turk (migrating here after WW2). Only recently Syrians and Ukrainians started warring for that headspace.
> Similarly here in Canada our immigration levels per capita which are very high - maybe too high - are still at a rate similar to that of most of the late 19th century
Per capita is often a really dishonest framing
Especially compared to dates 100+ years ago, when we probably didn't have super accurate census numbers. Especially since Canadian census at the time probably didn't even really include Native Americans.
It's also very different to be welcoming large amounts of immigrants of very similar cultures, versus large amounts of immigrants with very different cultures
In my lifetime Canada is going to see enough of a demographic shift that people sharing the culture I grew up with are going to be the minority. I've already seen that many neighborhoods in Calgary do not really participate in Halloween anymore, for instance. Every parent in my neighborhood says they take their kids elsewhere for Halloween to go door to door because our neighborhood doesn't have many houses that participate
Is that a big problem? No probably not, but it kinda sucks to see
Per capita is often a really dishonest framing
Especially compared to dates 100+ years ago, when we probably didn't have super accurate census numbers. Especially since Canadian census at the time probably didn't even really include Native Americans.
It's also very different to be welcoming large amounts of immigrants of very similar cultures, versus large amounts of immigrants with very different cultures
In my lifetime Canada is going to see enough of a demographic shift that people sharing the culture I grew up with are going to be the minority. I've already seen that many neighborhoods in Calgary do not really participate in Halloween anymore, for instance. Every parent in my neighborhood says they take their kids elsewhere for Halloween to go door to door because our neighborhood doesn't have many houses that participate
Is that a big problem? No probably not, but it kinda sucks to see
People don't freak out about the numbers of immigration, they freak out about what kind of immigration is happening. Me moving on the other side of the continent and a different branch of PIE language family is non-event. The person from the country next after mine and the one after are rising all the eyebrows.
Then you have both the left and right being in love with cheap labor. Elon Musk might have been making a fool out of himself over his desire to globalize the labor market even further to his own benefit but there's no shortage of people across the political spectrum that love having cheap lawncare, food service, and agricultural workers. It's an addiction that western society seems completely unable to even recognize as a problem, much less able to kick the addiction.
> because it goes directly against most people's first-hand observed reality
Most places in the US are relatively untouched by immigration, or put another way, southern border issues are irrelevant to Americans unless they live in a State on the US/Mexico border. Immigration is a classic right wing demagogue issue. Arguing in favor of it isn't going against people's "observed reality", it's contradicting what they heard on talk radio and Fox News.
> You want people to be fine with immigration? Tell them why it is desirable for them personally
If you get Social Security it will likely be due to millions of immigrants paying into it while not eligible for it. You probably eat stuff grown on a farm, you probably use stuff made in a factory, all heavily immigrant labor because Americans do not want to do it no matter the compensation.
Most places in the US are relatively untouched by immigration, or put another way, southern border issues are irrelevant to Americans unless they live in a State on the US/Mexico border. Immigration is a classic right wing demagogue issue. Arguing in favor of it isn't going against people's "observed reality", it's contradicting what they heard on talk radio and Fox News.
> You want people to be fine with immigration? Tell them why it is desirable for them personally
If you get Social Security it will likely be due to millions of immigrants paying into it while not eligible for it. You probably eat stuff grown on a farm, you probably use stuff made in a factory, all heavily immigrant labor because Americans do not want to do it no matter the compensation.
>To the people this is trying to convince, this will - rightfully - look like smartassery and dissembling.
If you assume they're trying to convince adults, sure. But instead, I think they're trying to convince low-level policy-makers. Educational professionals, mid-level bureaucrats, etc. And convincing those people are easy, they're already sold on this. Why do they want to convince them? Because those are the people who can indoctrinate. Not just school teachers... the bureaucracy is astounding in how well it works towards this end. Someone will need to navigate red tape, and they will be given very obvious hints that to fail to pay lip service to this narrative risks that which they want most from the bureaucracy.
From there, then people who hold contradictory opinions will start shutting up in all government offices, lest HR do its thing. And the final part is where the private sector starts imitating government because it knows which way the wind blows.
>You want people to be fine with immigration? Tell them why it is desirable for them personally instead of
But how can you do that when personally, for them as individuals (or probably even collectively), immigration isn't good for them? Sometimes the only way to win is to cheat, and I don't know if winners know that, but the cheaters certainly do.
If you assume they're trying to convince adults, sure. But instead, I think they're trying to convince low-level policy-makers. Educational professionals, mid-level bureaucrats, etc. And convincing those people are easy, they're already sold on this. Why do they want to convince them? Because those are the people who can indoctrinate. Not just school teachers... the bureaucracy is astounding in how well it works towards this end. Someone will need to navigate red tape, and they will be given very obvious hints that to fail to pay lip service to this narrative risks that which they want most from the bureaucracy.
From there, then people who hold contradictory opinions will start shutting up in all government offices, lest HR do its thing. And the final part is where the private sector starts imitating government because it knows which way the wind blows.
>You want people to be fine with immigration? Tell them why it is desirable for them personally instead of
But how can you do that when personally, for them as individuals (or probably even collectively), immigration isn't good for them? Sometimes the only way to win is to cheat, and I don't know if winners know that, but the cheaters certainly do.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nobody is talking about "pure cultures," this is a strawman used to trick people into reading a purely political essay.
It's also as dishonest as an article about a corrupt politician called "There are no perfect politicians."
If everybody was always globalized (and by this they always actually mean competing against poverty stricken people for work, and the freedom for foreign oligarchs to own large parts of your country), somebody needs to tell me why Europe didn't always have potatoes, tomatoes, corn, chocolate and syphilis, and why 80% of the American Indians died of European disease.
It's also as dishonest as an article about a corrupt politician called "There are no perfect politicians."
If everybody was always globalized (and by this they always actually mean competing against poverty stricken people for work, and the freedom for foreign oligarchs to own large parts of your country), somebody needs to tell me why Europe didn't always have potatoes, tomatoes, corn, chocolate and syphilis, and why 80% of the American Indians died of European disease.
“Emacs,vi and VSCode are the same editor, basically“
I can only surmise that the intended audience was like-minded academics. Most anti-globalists who believe in purity of culture aren't going to bother with the length and verbosity of this essay.
If academic types produce such weak arguments, they really don't have anyone to blame for the loss of prestige and trust of academia but themselves.
Almost anyone older than 50 is very aware of the fact that while there always has been some movement of ideas and people among the nations, the degree of those movements is much higher today, and the consequences much more massive. For example, presence of Islam in Western Europe used to be negligible until the early 1970s. Nowadays European cartoonists must tread lightly around possible blasphemy lest they want to be spectacularly murdered.
Plenty of locally specific cultural traits have disappeared as well, or are at least endangered, the same way that bonobo or kakapo are. Food is starting to be startingly similar across the globe. If you look at a new glass-and-steel building at a photo, you can't tell if it is in Dubai or in Stockholm or in Nairobi. Go to Papua-New Guinea, switch on the radio and you will hear Ed Sheeran or Taylor Swift. Etc etc.
Almost anyone older than 50 is very aware of the fact that while there always has been some movement of ideas and people among the nations, the degree of those movements is much higher today, and the consequences much more massive. For example, presence of Islam in Western Europe used to be negligible until the early 1970s. Nowadays European cartoonists must tread lightly around possible blasphemy lest they want to be spectacularly murdered.
Plenty of locally specific cultural traits have disappeared as well, or are at least endangered, the same way that bonobo or kakapo are. Food is starting to be startingly similar across the globe. If you look at a new glass-and-steel building at a photo, you can't tell if it is in Dubai or in Stockholm or in Nairobi. Go to Papua-New Guinea, switch on the radio and you will hear Ed Sheeran or Taylor Swift. Etc etc.
"People used to read newspapers every day, now they feel a sense of panic if they can't find their smartphones; nothing new about that."
"Paleolithic tribes traded beads and flint knapping techniques, now there's an unimaginably complicated logistics chain that knits the world together like a nervous system; nothing new about that."
It would be a specific instance of a false analogy. Would it be too cute to call this a rhyming fallacy? History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes, etc.