Ethnocentrism would face strong opposition from the people being changed, such as the fact of trying to assimilate aboriginals into general society. Trying to force agendas on others is an gruesome experience for some of those on the receiving end, and it is also very hard for a political body to actually assimilate an entire population. The benefits is if the assimilation is successful, there would be less inter-group conflict as there are just less cultures available to clash with each other, while intra-group conflict would not be all that different in relative terms. As for reverse ethnocentrism that embraces other cultures, the journey to reach consensus where all cultures or players in a society are satisfied would be a tall order, as some cultures have contradicting values that would never be agreed on by any side. For cultures to compromise a chunk of their cultural identity in order to thrive together would have many issues on dealing with equality or even how on what cultural goals would band cultures together into an equilibrium with unique sections having a common goal, meaning there would be some inevitable inter-group conflict between cultures so long they exist as different entities. Eurocentrism is an issue that reverse ethnocentrism has to deal with, as eurocentrism puts the spotlight for many of the world’s achievement on western and northern Europe and North America, which would then receive criticisms from other cultures for not giving credits to others in building the world as we know today, therefore creating a constant gap until all countries and cultures are given their own rightful credit, which would then become a tremendous task to complete. The benefits of reverse ethnocentrism would be that of creating an ideal culture of from
Ethnocentrism would face strong opposition from the people being changed, such as the fact of trying to assimilate aboriginals into general society. Trying to force agendas on others is an gruesome experience for some of those on the receiving end, and it is also very hard for a political body to actually assimilate an entire population. The benefits is if the assimilation is successful, there would be less inter-group conflict as there are just less cultures available to clash with each other, while intra-group conflict would not be all that different in relative terms. As for reverse ethnocentrism that embraces other cultures, the journey to reach consensus where all cultures or players in a society are satisfied would be a tall order, as some cultures have contradicting values that would never be agreed on by any side. For cultures to compromise a chunk of their cultural identity in order to thrive together would have many issues on dealing with equality or even how on what cultural goals would band cultures together into an equilibrium with unique sections having a common goal, meaning there would be some inevitable inter-group conflict between cultures so long they exist as different entities. Eurocentrism is an issue that reverse ethnocentrism has to deal with, as eurocentrism puts the spotlight for many of the world’s achievement on western and northern Europe and North America, which would then receive criticisms from other cultures for not giving credits to others in building the world as we know today, therefore creating a constant gap until all countries and cultures are given their own rightful credit, which would then become a tremendous task to complete. The benefits of reverse ethnocentrism would be that of creating an ideal culture of from