bigtoughralf wrote:I already gave examples of how it's a good thing. I know you saw them, because you quoted the post they're in. Did I use words with too many syllables?
You gave some lame examples, but you DID NOT explain HOW these were “good” or positive..,
jimboston wrote:bigtoughralf wrote:Just because a change doesn't immediately have an impact on a number in a spreadsheet doesn't mean it won't be impactful. Giving cultures greater prominence and importance helps stimulate acceptance and culture change, and culture change leads to changes in values and behaviours.
For example, official recognition of the Irish language in Northern Ireland combined with investment in Irish language teaching and promotion (since last year) may well lead to more Northern Irish people developing stronger senses of Irish identity and over time boosting support for a united Ireland. It might also help some culturally Irish NI people to feel less marginalised and therefore less resistant to or distrustful of state institutions.
If recognising an Australian island's history and native culture is 'weakness' in your eyes then I dread to think what your proposed show of strength would look like. Sounds like ol' jim is a fan of Xin Jinping's Uyghur leisure centres.
Neither of these things you suggest as positive outcomes are automatically positive.
In many ways they can also be big negatives.
It’s funny how people use words to suggest a meaning, when they often actually mean or result in the opposite of the suggested meaning.
If fact in some ways the two “goods” you suggest are also contradictory.
So you want to change Australian culture… so you are saying Australian culture is bad.
So, you suggest this it may lead to more trust in state institutions. So the Australian culture sucks but their gov’t is awesome?
