>>1884505>Traveling made me racistHonestly, me too.
In my experience, visiting major urban/wealth centers is a pretty universal, culturally. There are some differences, but by in large there are only very subtle differences in upper and upper middle class lifestyles around the world. The real vanguards of culture are those in the lower classes. What you see in a ghetto in the US, compared to a favela in Brazil, to slums in India or the Philippines varies massively. As does rural culture in many of these places; internationally, people think of cowboy culture when they think of the US, however that's most notable in small towns. When it comes to countries like Ethiopia, or Laos/Vietnam, the stereotypes that come to mind are small villages as well. It ignores the fact that much (often most) of the population live in relatively cosmopolitan urban centers, which aren't too foreign in appearance if you avoid their shitty neighborhoods.
So culturally, any "diversity" that we promote should focus on the poorest classes of any country.
Many of your typical Liberal Arts educators promote suburban/privileged culture as a uniquely Western concept, and that the parts of the world that don't subscribe to whiteness are these socially enlightened, exotic cultures. They aren't. The places that have uniqueness to them are analogous to the neighborhoods and towns in the West where your typical upper-middle class "woke" crusader would never be caught dead walking through after sundown. Naturally, this takes any respect I have for the people who focus on cultural theory without ever walking the streets of a non-tourist town.
But on a more relevant note, Amish are kinda extreme in my eyes. Other Anabaptist sects are pretty cool, especially how they've managed to keep themselves in a very insular culture, when we live in a very global world.