Diversity is not our strength.

Thanks for accepting. Many nations throughout history have employed measures to preserve their cultures. This is often done by limiting the influence of foreign culture. German law mandates that all children attend government schools to prevent parallel societies from forming.[2] Japan isolated itself culturally, and it's society was stable for a long time . [3] France has previously made efforts to ward off influence of the language of globalization: English. [4] You can argue the failings of any of those cultures, and why they should integrate some positive aspects from their neighbors. But if they do, they are not merely adding to their own culture, they are making themselves less of what they were, and more of what someone else is. This is the illusion of globalization. It doesn't just add the new, it displaces some of the old. What you are left with is not the original culture, but a minor sub-culture of the globalized one. This is no longer multi-culturalism, but cultural assimilation into a homogenized global culture. Alexander the Great employed this with his spread of Hellenistic Culture. This was used as an attractive tool to more easily assimilate and rule subjects of foreign cultures. [5] So globalization isn't multi-culturalism. Where are the drawbacks? Any good thing can be corrupted, and probably will be at sometime. Good food can be over-indulged, security can be used as a tool to promote control, and trust can be taken advantage of. This was the accusation of former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov when he defected in 1970. In this lecture [1] he gives an overview of how the trust and curiosity of an unwitting culture open to outside influence can be subverted by aggressive outsiders, and converted to a like-minded closed culture. Not all cultural exchanges are laced with this back-handedness, but like an unsecured computer network, it is convenient for friendly AND hostile users to access. Once inside a society, Mr. Bezmenov and his former comrades established some level of trust (or leverage [6]) with culturally influential persons (artists, journalists, educators, politicians, religious leaders) who were curious, but naïve or sympathetic toward the USSR's motives. They would then convince the visitors through whatever effective means to sow seeds of dissent against their native culture, and seeds of trust toward Socialist revolutionary ideas. An open door isn't always a bad thing, but if no one watches who comes through the door, that is the vulnerability of openness. If some Native American tribes had been more careful about which cultural elements they borrowed from Europeans, generations may have been saved from the grip of alcoholism. [7] Multi-culturalism can easily lead to the introduction of a destructive counter-culture bent on destruction of it's host. No matter which side you agree with more, this was the point of counter-culture that came to prevalence in the 1960's. To counter/oppose the existing culture. Rebuttals Contention #1: Exploring foreign foods, and learning new practical skills from other cultures is not bad. But if you do that, you must be careful what you bring into your “home.” Even the isolationist Japanese during the Tokugawa Period shared things with Dutch and Chinese traders, but on a very regulated basis. But this small bit of beneficial sharing hardly made Japan multi-cultural. Any cultures apart from recognized Japanese norms were to be isolated or eliminated. In the U.S., the ideal of multiculturalism is that many distinct cultures can exist with eachother. [8] In reality, if the cultures are to maintain their distinctions, they must assimilate, destroy, isolate, or displace eachother. Either homogenize, or separate. We know the history of segregation in the U.S. that maintained two separate cultures. They were generally not friendly towards eachother.My home city is sizable enough to have segregated population. There are cross-overs, like interracial marriages, but this and the end of historical segregation was only possible with cultural INTEGRATION, or the elimination of two distinct cultures, and start of a new homogenized one. As long as the two cultures insisted on being separate, they were hostile. At the least, Orthodox Jews living in Gentile nations don't associate with Gentiles to a large extent. We still see white supremacists and black supremacists cause weakness in our nations. This will not change until the two give up hostility and integrate, or one or both are eliminated. Then we will be stroger. Contention #2 “Do not be deceived, bad company corrupts good character.” Contention 2 assumes that if all cultures to live next to eachother, only the good qualities will come to the top. It can go the other way. Detroit, Dayton, Lima, Flint, and Gary used to be prosperous cities, but cultures and government policies with bad properties overwhelmed the good. Jobs are now scarce, and crime and blight are common. But Contention 2 also assumes they will get along long enough to share anything but blows. It's not impossible, but this was not the case when Pakistan and India seperated. Hindu and Muslim ideas are inherently incompatible if either is to be preserved. Either both will pass, they will stay separate, or one will prevail. Contention #3 I don't disagree with much that my opponent says here, but it doesn't apply. Variety is fun and exciting, but irrelevant when considering strength and security. [1] http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://www.worldmag.com... [3] http://www.britannica.com... [4] http://www.economist.com... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.youtube.com... [7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [8] http://dictionary.reference.com...