Multicultural versus monocultural societies and countries

[Viking]

Continuing the debate that I initiated here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?146724-Ukraine-in-a-thread&p=2053594428&viewfull=1#post2053594428).

My claim: a world where all the countries are largely or completely monocultural is vastly preferable to a world where X number of countries are solidly multicultural.


That's what I've been trying to say.

I don't think labeling multiculturalism as "one more headache [...] that the country in question has to learn to deal with" does it justice, though.

For me, it's like building a house in valley where it floods every year versus building it in a valley where it floods every 300 years. I view the facilitation of large-scale multiculturalism as ultimately irresponsible.


Id argue they are both vulnerable to "nasty things" but in different ways.

Multiculturalism never prevented the USSR's imperialistic ambitions, neither does it prevent Russia's imperialistic ambitions now. It did not prevent the Holodomor, it did not prevent the USSR from ethnic cleansing (like the Crimean Tatars). Who was in charge of the USSR when the two previous examples took place? Josepth Stalin aka Ioseb Jughashvili, an ethnic Georgian ruling from a mostly ethnically Russian city.

What nasty stuff happening in mostly monocultural countries happen considerably less often or never at all in multicultural countries?

EDIT: For this post, monocultural ≠ culturally conservative. It's about the number of cultures within a geographic area.

[Montmorency]

I agree, in principle.

However, monoculture is impossible without dramatic alterations (likely engineered) to the cognitive structure of the human brain.

Simplest answer: hive mind.


What nasty stuff happening in mostly monocultural countries happen considerably less often or never at all in multicultural countries?

I'm not going to bother with catching up in the Ukraine thread, but the example you used in your post is an exemplar of multiculturalism like a suicidal person is the picture of health.

In the interim, therefore, the embrace of multiculturalism is far less harmful than attempts to impose some formulated culture.

[Tellos Athenaios]

My claim: a world where all the countries are largely or completely monocultural is vastly preferable to a world where X number of countries are solidly multicultural.

No, no, no. Without multicultural societies we'd still be stuck with plain turnips for dinner. It's the immigrants with their funny smelling/looking but tasty foods that prompt us to improve our culinary lot; and it is much the same with art, technology, literature and architecture.

Asian cuisine is undeniably richer for the introduction of the chili, and we in Europe and America are doubtlessly better off for the introduction of Asian cuisine in our life. Gandaharan art would not nearly be as interesting or as beautiful to look at if it weren't for that special combination of Indian traditions fused with the Hellenistic sense of style and technical refinement.

[Sir Moody]

The problem with Monoculture at the most fundamental level is even within Native Ethnic groups there are usually more than 1 distinct cultural group and to implement a monoculture you will need to suppress the other cultural identities - this is entirely possible and many cultures have dabbled in it (the Kingdom of England's suppression of Welsh culture for example) however the methods aren't often very "tasteful" and the results can backfire spectacularly...

In the other thread you used Syria as an example of a failed Multicultural state - id argue in fact the opposite - Assad's regime were attempting to instil a monoculture state by suppressing the rival cultural group (the Sunni Muslims in this case) which in combination with their Authoritarian methods lead to the uprisings and the now brutal civil war... ironically should the Sunnis win they will probably try the same thing in reverse...

[Viking]

I agree, in principle.

However, monoculture is impossible without dramatic alterations (likely engineered) to the cognitive structure of the human brain.

Simplest answer: hive mind.

I was thinking slightly less futuristic/theoretical. Diversity of sort tends to be a positive; people having different perspectives makes it more likely that at least someone will understand whatever. I don't think that multicultural is more likely to increase this kind of positive diversity, however; I think it's just as likely to increase partisan thinking.


I'm not going to bother with catching up in the Ukraine thread, but the example you used in your post is an exemplar of multiculturalism like a suicidal person is the picture of health.

Jughashvili's ethnicity was the icing on the cake. The point is that the USSR was highly multicultural; it comprised distinct cultural entities as diverse as Poland and Tajikistan.


In the interim, therefore, the embrace of multiculturalism is far less harmful than attempts to impose some formulated culture.

I am not interested in imposing culture. Personally, I am not very fond of culture itself. It's frustrating enough already having to deal with the silliness of my own culture; having to deal with the silliness of other cultures in addition all the more so. I am an individualist. I embrace culture to the extent that it seems pragmatically necessary.



No, no, no. Without multicultural societies we'd still be stuck with plain turnips for dinner. It's the immigrants with their funny smelling/looking but tasty foods that prompt us to improve our culinary lot; and it is much the same with art, technology, literature and architecture.

Asian cuisine is undeniably richer for the introduction of the chili, and we in Europe and America are doubtlessly better off for the introduction of Asian cuisine in our life. Gandaharan art would not nearly be as interesting or as beautiful to look at if it weren't for that special combination of Indian traditions fused with the Hellenistic sense of style and technical refinement.

Long ago, the potato came to this country. It didn't come with people from the Americas. Currently, the Llama is appearing more and more as a farm animal here, and I it was doubt immigrants from South America who first brought it in. Today, I can buy Korean mobile phones in the nearest electrical shop, and I don't need to have a Korean immigrant move into my home in return.

You don't need representatives of a culture to come over to stay in your country in order for your culture to absorb parts of their culture. You don't need the rest of their culture either.


The problem with Monoculture at the most fundamental level is even within Native Ethnic groups there are usually more than 1 distinct cultural group and to implement a monoculture you will need to suppress the other cultural identities - this is entirely possible and many cultures have dabbled in it (the Kingdom of England's suppression of Welsh culture for example) however the methods aren't often very "tasteful" and the results can backfire spectacularly...

In the other thread you used Syria as an example of a failed Multicultural state - id argue in fact the opposite - Assad's regime were attempting to instil a monoculture state by suppressing the rival cultural group (the Sunni Muslims in this case) which in combination with their Authoritarian methods lead to the uprisings and the now brutal civil war... ironically should the Sunnis win they will probably try the same thing in reverse...

From what I've read, Assad's state was/is secular.

I don't argue for suppression of culture. It's quite the opposite, I think that cultures trying to suppress (and generally fight) each other is almost an inevitability of multiculturalism and one of the reasons that I oppose it.

[Sir Moody]

I don't argue for suppression of culture. It's quite the opposite, I think that cultures trying to suppress (and generally fight) each other is almost an inevitability of multiculturalism and one of the reasons that I oppose it.

so what do you suggest then? a mass break up of currently existing countries to match cultural divisions? surely you realise that isn't even feasible...

[Montmorency]

Ok, Viking: could you define "culture" and "multiculturalism", because you're using them in a slightly confusing way.


I am not interested in imposing culture. Personally, I am not very fond of culture itself. It's frustrating enough already having to deal with the silliness of my own culture; having to deal with the silliness of other cultures all the more so. I am an individualist. I embrace culture to the extent that it seems pragmatically necessary.

Obviously, it isn't possible to have no culture; we create culture merely by existing. Even a child raised by wolves develops culture.

It's not about pragmatism but cognitive structure. We can no more not have culture (without modifying the aforementioned) than we can not have the sense of there being a here and now (which can be temporarily modified with, for instance, psychotropics).

[Viking]

so what do you suggest then? a mass break up of currently existing countries to match cultural divisions? surely you realise that isn't even feasible...

Primarily, I am thinking about not creating more multiculture than what we already have.

Countries are breaking up in significant numbers due to cultural and ethnical differences. Just in very recent history we have: Kosovo from Serbia, East Timor from Indonesia, South Sudan from Sudan.

As unrecognised\less successful examples there are Kurdistan (from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria), Abkhazia and South-Ossetia from Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.


There's two views on multiculturalism: The one where cultural groups live side-by-side in some weird utopian hand-holding exercise (which, if you couldn't tell, is a false view mostly held by people who are critics of multiculturalism) and the far more correct notion that you accept people who are different from you, and over time everyone loses their culture, and a new culture is born fused from the two. I wouldn't want to live in an America without the white hip hop artists and freaking taco bell--"Mexican" food for poor white people. By that same token, I'm sure in a few generations Americans will take for granted that they don't get sunburned as easily, because they'll have a lot more melanin going on. Multiculturalism has benefits, and though it has downsides (especially when integration is resisted by either side) they are ostensibly temporary.

Multiculturalism is when two or more cultures live side by side, whether with friendship or hostility between them. You assume that different cultures will merge eventually. I don't think it's quite that simple.

If Usanians of European and African descents had mixed properly, a melanin boost from Mexicans would not have been that "necessary". The fact that these two groups still are comparably separated seems to me to indicate that the merger you assume will take place between all cultures is not something that can be taken for granted.


Now this is all contrary to the anti-multicultural stance that immigrants to a country--if allowed at all--should conform to the needs of the host country entirely. This is a hollow view, unless you're willing to enforce it with actual force, because only under the threat of force will people abandon their ways completely for something as shallow as, say, "American" culture. If one isn't willing to consider force, then one has to admit this point of view is absurd. Which is why it is almost exclusively the province of bigots who don't think things through all the way.

I don't think anything should be enforced, which is why I in return oppose mass-immigration; it's hard to deal with adequately. The US is a bit of a special example, since it is a really big and strongly federalised country, which alters a lot of the mechanisms considerably compared to the average country on this planet.




Ok, Viking: could you define "culture" and "multiculturalism", because you're using them in a slightly confusing way.



Obviously, it isn't possible to have no culture; we create culture merely by existing. Even a child raised by wolves develops culture.

It's not about pragmatism but cognitive structure. We can no more not have culture (without modifying the aforementioned) than we can not have the sense of there being a here and now (which can be temporarily modified with, for instance, psychotropics).

Culture is what is shared between people on a larger scale. The opposite of culture isn't really no culture (i.e. nothing), but idiosyncrasy. This definition seems completely compatible with definitions provided several places, like here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture):


the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

[Sir Moody]

Primarily, I am thinking about not creating more multiculture than what we already have.

Countries are breaking up in significant numbers due to cultural and ethnical differences. Just in very recent history we have: Kosovo from Serbia, East Timor from Indonesia, South Sudan from Sudan.

As unrecognised\less successful examples there are Kurdistan (from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria), Abkhazia and South-Ossetia from Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.



and how exactly do you propose doing that without clamping down on cultural influences? it isn't as simple as stopping immigration - you will need to cut off the Internet (which is the biggest cultural exchange in History), Cut off all Foreign Media sources and cut all International trade...

It just isn't feasible without MASSIVE Authoritarian actions... and even then probably wouldn't work

[Pannonian]

No, no, no. Without multicultural societies we'd still be stuck with plain turnips for dinner. It's the immigrants with their funny smelling/looking but tasty foods that prompt us to improve our culinary lot; and it is much the same with art, technology, literature and architecture.

Asian cuisine is undeniably richer for the introduction of the chili, and we in Europe and America are doubtlessly better off for the introduction of Asian cuisine in our life. Gandaharan art would not nearly be as interesting or as beautiful to look at if it weren't for that special combination of Indian traditions fused with the Hellenistic sense of style and technical refinement.

The British will be better off when we throw away foreign influences and foods and return to good old British fare like fish and chips. Oh hang on, indigenous British food can't include fish and chips because the potato was introduced from the Americas. Pizzas can't exist because tomatoes were also introduced from the Americas. We're no longer a nation of tea drinkers as that's imported from south Asia. No curries or stir fries either, as that's Asian. We won't go too far back, as we'll lose the crop and animal package we got from the middle east. But we'll have to lose the compass, certain mathematical concepts (like Arabic numerals) and various other things we've picked up over the last few hundred years.

I've watched a few of the living history series on how everyday life was back in Tudor etc. times, and most of the more wondrous, luxurious stuff was foreign ideas and crafts introduced from Asia and elsewhere. Understandably so, as our expansions allowed us to cherry pick the best of the rest of the world and keep what we found good. And much of the world have done much the same for our culture too, as well as culture that we'd adopted and transported to where we had been. Most clashes have been where someone has defined culture as a monolithic thing and imposed it on all, whether by purifying what they see as the chosen culture, or by dominating others into submission. As for me, I like to have different cultures at my disposal, and to be able to pick and choose according to my taste.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Long ago, the potato came to this country. It didn't come with people from the Americas. Currently, the Llama is appearing more and more as a farm animal here, and I it was doubt immigrants from South America who first brought it in. Today, I can buy Korean mobile phones in the nearest electrical shop, and I don't need to have a Korean immigrant move into my home in return.

You don't need representatives of a culture to come over to stay in your country in order for your culture to absorb parts of their culture. You don't need the rest of their culture either.


Ah but you see, the potato did not come to your country without some society somewhere turning multicultural. Same with the llamas and the cellphones. Truly monocultural societies will stagnate or at least advance at a much slower rate than others, since they are unable to benefit from the advances of other cultures without engaging in some form of cultural exchange (which precludes retaining a monoculture). You cannot have writing, for example, without it fundamentally altering your culture.

Unless your argument is really all "NIMBY", I'm afraid it doesn't hold water.

And finally, as plenty of farmers have found out to their cost: a monoculture may be easy and efficient in the short run but it will leave you to starve to death in the long run. That's why until late in the 20th century China was regularly plagued by famine as a matter of course whereas it took the introduction of the potato and severe mismanagement to trigger it in Ireland. I would contend that the same also holds for culture in the people sense: a monoculture leaves you ill prepared for a changing modern world, and more likely than not at some point your erratic and unprepared behaviour when confronted with something that is so far beyond your grasp will lead social studies the world over to name a particular human folly after it. All it needs is some reference to the subject of the culture shock... say 'cargo' ?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh hang on...

You'll have to get rid of the Union Jack, too. Can't be having the Genoese cross on there, can we now? On the up side, you'll also be rid of the most depressing form of Protestantism known to mankind on account of it being a Swiss invention.

Question: is the Scottish flag still acceptable, or do we need to bin it, too? Can't be having the Scottish or working class Essex accents, though, that's for certain.

[Pannonian]

Ah but you see, the potato did not come to your country without some society somewhere turning multicultural. Same with the llamas and the cellphones. Truly monocultural societies will stagnate or at least advance at a much slower rate than others, since they are unable to benefit from the advances of other cultures without engaging in some form of cultural exchange (which precludes retaining a monoculture). You cannot have writing, for example, without it fundamentally altering your culture.

Unless your argument is really all "NIMBY", I'm afraid it doesn't hold water.

And finally, as plenty of farmers have found out to their cost: a monoculture may be easy and efficient in the short run but it will leave you to starve to death in the long run. That's why until late in the 20th century China was regularly plagued by famine as a matter of course whereas it took the introduction of the potato and severe mismanagement to trigger it in Ireland. I would contend that the same also holds for culture in the people sense: a monoculture leaves you ill prepared for a changing modern world, and more likely than not at some point your erratic and unprepared behaviour when confronted with something that is so far beyond your grasp will lead social studies the world over to name a particular human folly after it. All it needs is some reference to the subject of the culture shock... say 'cargo' ?

For an example of what happens to strict monocultures, see what happened to the greatest and most powerful empire in the world after they enforced their extreme internalism. The monocultural Chinese came under pressure from and were bullied by the multicultural Europeans. Their self-admitted turning point came when a faction resolved to take on board the best of what they found in British culture, and using a British colony as their springboard, won power in and proceeded to modernise China.

[HoreTore]

What's a monocultural society, except a multicultural one which has stayed multicultural for so long people no longer realize they're multicultural anymore?

Case in point: France. The most multicultural country in Europe, by far.

EDIT: Heck, or what about Viking's own town of Bergen? There's barely anything Norwegian at all about that city, yet it seems to do fine in everything except sports...

[Pannonian]

What's a monocultural society, except a multicultural one which has stayed multicultural for so long people no longer realize they're multicultural anymore?

Case in point: France. The most multicultural country in Europe, by far.

I beg to differ. The majority of the French language is derived from a single linguistic set. The English language has several distinct sets of rules and customs, including famously farmyard animals whose name changes depending whether you're looking after the animal or eating it.

Slough (pronounced sl-ow, rhyming with plough): a town in southern England.
Slough (pronounced sl-uff, rhyming with rough): a layer of dead skin tissue.

[HoreTore]

I beg to differ. The majority of the French language is derived from a single linguistic set. The English language has several distinct sets of rules and customs, including famously farmyard animals whose name changes depending whether you're looking after the animal or eating it.

Slough (pronounced sl-ow, rhyming with plough): a town in southern England.
Slough (pronounced sl-uff, rhyming with rough): a layer of dead skin tissue.

Yeah, England is a multicultural immigrant-fest, no doubt about that...

What I was aiming for, however, was the old Germany-France comparison of statehood, where France was a state without a people, and Germany a people without a state...

[Viking]

[...]


[...]


[...]


I am not talking about monoculturalism as cultural conservatism, I am taking about monoculturalism as the opposite of multiculturalism: i.e. only one culture per city/country you name it rather than several. Of course it would be stupid for a culture fight change in itself.

Made an addendum to the OP.


EDIT: Heck, or what about Viking's own town of Bergen? There's barely anything Norwegian at all about that city, yet it seems to do fine in everything except sports...

Don't know from where you got the idea that I am from Bergen; I am from the countryside. I don't care much for regional rivalry, and even less for sports; so whatever. ~D

[HoreTore]

Don't know from where you got the idea that I am from Bergen; I am from the countryside. I don't care much for regional rivalry, and even less for sports; so whatever. ~D

Sorry, must have confused you with someone else....

However, my comment was not an attempt to engage in any regional rivalry, it was a comment at how there is very little Norwegian about Bergen.

Yet, Bergen was the city which brought Norway out of the dark ages and into the modern world.


....But since you're rural, I can add the following:

The difference between urban and rural culture is huge. It has been the basis of several civil wars. Thus, a country which possesses both a strong agricultural sector as well as a strong industrial sector, is by definition a multicultural society. Is it your opinion that we would be better off if we scrapped one of the two sectors?

[Beskar]

I try to avoid the linguist issue by calling what I support "Open-Culture/Society", basically, it is a bed where new ideas can take root and supplant traditional/out-dated opinions and culture is based upon merits. It is where someone can come, bring something new with them, we learn all the good stuff from them, and we leave them learning the good from us. Society is a mutual exchange of ideas and information, bringing knowledge to benefit all.

[Viking]

Sorry, must have confused you with someone else....

However, my comment was not an attempt to engage in any regional rivalry, it was a comment at how there is very little Norwegian about Bergen.

Yet, Bergen was the city which brought Norway out of the dark ages and into the modern world.


....But since you're rural, I can add the following:

The difference between urban and rural culture is huge. It has been the basis of several civil wars. Thus, a country which possesses both a strong agricultural sector as well as a strong industrial sector, is by definition a multicultural society. Is it your opinion that we would be better off if we scrapped one of the two sectors?

As I said in the other thread, I am not searching for the ultimate monoculture. I want a monoculture that is varied on an individual level, as opposed to a polyculture that is varied on a group level. I want people to say "I am an individual and have my own opinions" rather than "My people are Flutniks and think X, while those people over there are Gragturts and think Y". To a great extent, cultures are states of mind as much as they are physical manifestations of norms etc. (but they really are both).

In modern times, I don't think the cultural differences between countryside and urban areas are that large in this country, anyway. Primary difference now is that more urban areas host larger populations and thus also more variation in opinion. You'll probably find much greater variation comparing the countrysides from two different parts of the country than comparing both of them with their nearest city.


I try to avoid the linguist issue by calling what I support "Open-Culture/Society", basically, it is a bed where new ideas can take root and supplant traditional/out-dated opinions and culture is based upon merits. It is where someone can come, bring something new with them, we learn all the good stuff from them, and we leave them learning the good from us. Society is a mutual exchange of ideas and information, bringing knowledge to benefit all.

Sounds nice in theory, but in practice; there is more to it. Many people identify themselves with at least significant parts of the culture they belong to; so sometimes, identities clash. Others may seek routes of purity. I've heard that 2. generation immigrants can be more culturally conservative than what their parents are; but I don't know whether any scientific studies have been conducted on this.

[Husar]

I don't have much time to answer, but this is a good video on the topic:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmTV62mE1PA

[Brenus]

“Multiculturalism never prevented the USSR's imperialistic ambitions, neither does it prevent Russia's imperialistic ambitions now. It did not prevent the Holodomor, it did not prevent the USSR from ethnic cleansing (like the Crimean Tatars). Who was in charge of the USSR when the two previous examples took place? Josepth Stalin aka Ioseb Jughashvili, an ethnic Georgian ruling from a mostly ethnically Russian city.” This is not a problem of multiculturalism, it is a problem of politic, beliefs and dictatorship. The “holodomor” was not against an ethnic group as it killed as well Russians, as the Tatars were deported for political reason, as the Germans and others minorities who did collaborate with the German Armies (i.e. Cossack of Crimea). As the famine in Ireland and in India under UK regime, the famines in USSR happened because/for economic principles push to the extreme and the refusal by leaders to recognise mistake.

“I beg to differ. The majority of the French language is derived from a single linguistic set. The English language has several distinct sets of rules and customs, including famously farmyard animals whose name changes depending whether you're looking after the animal or eating it.” Err, no. French derived from German, Latin and others languages, but mostly by the fusion of the language of Oc(citant) an Oi (North). I can tell you that the same word have different meaning in Calais or in Marseilles, and even don’t want to speak of Canadian French, or variety in African Countries French. And if you want homonymy: sceau, sot, saut, seau (all pronounced as so ). As for description, a piece of meat change name depending if it comes for a wild animal or farm animals: Gigot (lamb) and cuisseau (dear) (even if the last tends to vanish) or/and size of the animal.

[Montmorency]

Problems:

As a larger point, conflict between cultures is one of the surest ways we have for the development and dissemination of improvements of any sort.

Freedom of movement is directly correlated with economic efficiency and power. However, with your tightly-gerrymandered vision of the world, movement would have to be heavily controlled and restricted to prevent more than a small degree of mixing. It would have to be a small degree as obviously if there's no movement between cities or whatever geopolitical unit you have in mind, then ultimately there will be almost no contact of any sort between them, and really that's the end of civilization. Ultimately, this will totally undermine your world unless you plan for periodic purges of some sort.

In the longer-term, preventing free mixing in commerce and settlement means it is absolutely necessary for the state to immediately implement systematic reproductive pairing schedules to minimize inbreeding within cultures.

Basically, you'd be taking some of the worst elements of the Soviet Union's system (not to say that all of yours would have been in the USSR - the folly exceeds even that).

[Montmorency]

As I said in the other thread, I am not searching for the ultimate monoculture. I want a monoculture that is varied on an individual level, as opposed to a polyculture that is varied on a group level. I want people to say "I am an individual and have my own opinions" rather than "My people are Flutniks and think X, while those people over there are Gragturts and think Y". To a great extent, cultures are states of mind as much as they are physical manifestations of norms etc. (but they really are both).

In modern times, I don't think the cultural differences between countryside and urban areas are that large in this country, anyway. Primary difference now is that more urban areas host larger populations and thus also more variation in opinion. You'll probably find much greater variation comparing the countrysides from two different parts of the country than comparing both of them with their nearest city.

Missed this.

First point: that's unwarranted, silly, dangerous, and inherently impossible and self-contradictory.

Second point: it obviously depends on the country or countries, and the size of the "nearest cit[ies]" we're talking about.

[Montmorency]

Yet another problem:

On what basis do you distinguish "group cultures"? How are you going to categorize each and every human such that they can be placed with their groups and, you know, not bring along any other cultures? People are multicultural to a far greater extent than implied by even the smallest-scale terminological specifications.

I don't want to disparage you, but if you can't explain some more of the concrete details of this worldview in a way that addresses these issues, it will be revealed as another poorly-thought-out utopian thought-exercise fatally riddled with inconsistencies

[HoreTore]

As I said in the other thread, I am not searching for the ultimate monoculture. I want a monoculture that is varied on an individual level, as opposed to a polyculture that is varied on a group level. I want people to say "I am an individual and have my own opinions" rather than "My people are Flutniks and think X, while those people over there are Gragturts and think Y". To a great extent, cultures are states of mind as much as they are physical manifestations of norms etc. (but they really are both).

In modern times, I don't think the cultural differences between countryside and urban areas are that large in this country, anyway. Primary difference now is that more urban areas host larger populations and thus also more variation in opinion. You'll probably find much greater variation comparing the countrysides from two different parts of the country than comparing both of them with their nearest city.

I disregard this post by simply pointing you in the direction of the months-long "bygdedyret"-debate in Aftenposten a few years back.

Anyway, I see few differences between the identifiers of the rural west and the urban east in Norway, and the differences between the Hutu and the Tutsi.

The rural west has sheep, the east has wheat. The Tutsi had animals, the Hutu grew plants. The west is coast-bound, the east is inland. There is a geographic difference between the Hutu and Tutsi, but I can't recall at the moment what it was. Unlike the Hutu and the Tutsis, the east and west in Norway do not share a common language.

If Norways rural and urban populations equal a monoculture, then so does Rwanda. And Rwanda ended in a genocide...

[Pannonian]

Yet another problem:

On what basis do you distinguish "group cultures"? How are you going to categorize each and every human such that they can be placed with their groups and, you know, not bring along any other cultures? People are multicultural to a far greater extent than implied by even the smallest-scale terminological specifications.

I don't want to disparage you, but if you can't explain some more of the concrete details of this worldview in a way that addresses these issues, it will be revealed as another poorly-thought-out utopian thought-exercise fatally riddled with inconsistencies

It's a misconception of those who don't have much experience of how multiculturalism works in practice. For those of us who do live in a multicultural world, we know that "melting pot" is probably a better description of the reality. Throw everything into the mixer, and each person will take what they will from it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Looks like its the same old story here - people talking at cross-purposes and attributing their own meaning to terms. Proponents of one view tend to view the other only in its most extreme sense, while keeping to a more sensible understanding of their own.

Another problem is that people here are focusing on highly specific historical examples, rather than considering the inherent merits of either of the forms of social organisation. No doubt throughout history there will be many instances where monoculturalism and multiculturalism have been sources of good, and many instances when they have been sources of evil. However, we should not forget that the mode through which they are implemented (eg whether by organic cultural spread, or more forcibly by oppression) is really a separate matter entirely, yet it has been conflated constantly throughout this thread.

Personally, I think the most important thing with culture is that it develops naturally, or organically - that is both reflects and binds the common experience of the people who give it its being. This is crucial for creating a society where there is mutual respect, where there is a sense of solidarity, and where there is something that can provide a bridge across more individual differences (gender, age, etc). I suppose such a culture would not be monocultural or multicultural, since there would neither be a single, dominant culture, nor would there be vastly different cultures living side by side. But for me, that would be the most healthy kind of culture.

[Fragony]

I have given it up, I know I am right but being right is not the same as being recognised as being right. There is only so much you can take in the end before you start feeling really uncomfortable with those who think differently. Dead discussion, it's a given that it ought to work, we will always have Paris.

[Sir Moody]

Personally, I think the most important thing with culture is that it develops naturally, or organically - that is both reflects and binds the common experience of the people who give it its being. This is crucial for creating a society where there is mutual respect, where there is a sense of solidarity, and where there is something that can provide a bridge across more individual differences (gender, age, etc). I suppose such a culture would not be monocultural or multicultural, since there would neither be a single, dominant culture, nor would there be vastly different cultures living side by side. But for me, that would be the most healthy kind of culture.

What you are describing is the Multicultural model - overtime cultures do naturally "bleed" into each other simply by living close to each other.

Multiculturalism does not require "vastly different" cultures to live side by side - the multiple cultural groups can easily be very similar (and often are) - for example (to massively oversimplify it) the English and the Welsh were distinct cultural groups who shared a great number of cultural traits and over time the 2 cultures have "merged" - while there are still distinct differences between the culture groups, these are now much smaller.

Obviously that was a grossly simplified example as the "English" and "Welsh" culture groups are in fact a conglomerate of a large number of smaller Culture groups and are not true culture groups themselves.

Obviously this process will take far longer with vastly different cultures but it is the same process.

[HoreTore]

Obviously this process will take far longer with vastly different cultures but it is the same process.

I wonder what specifically identifies a "vastly different cuture"?

[Montmorency]

However, we should not forget that the mode through which they are implemented (eg whether by organic cultural spread, or more forcibly by oppression) is really a separate matter entirely, yet it has been conflated constantly throughout this thread.

I'm not so sure. Viking is using the sense of "multi"-culturalism in the sense of 'sheer number of "cultures" within some defined geographical area'.

Now, whether or not monoculturalism counts as "organic" depends on whether you want to consider coercion as organic or not; anyway, clearly multiculturalism by the OP's definition is the default, and certainly "organic", state unless we're talking about scattered non-agricultural tribal groups across thousands of miles, basically similar to what Moody has pointed out.

Therefore, one versus the other will inherently draw on different, though not necessarily un-overlapping, "modes of implementation".

[Viking]

“Multiculturalism never prevented the USSR's imperialistic ambitions, neither does it prevent Russia's imperialistic ambitions now. It did not prevent the Holodomor, it did not prevent the USSR from ethnic cleansing (like the Crimean Tatars). Who was in charge of the USSR when the two previous examples took place? Josepth Stalin aka Ioseb Jughashvili, an ethnic Georgian ruling from a mostly ethnically Russian city.” This is not a problem of multiculturalism, it is a problem of politic, beliefs and dictatorship. The “holodomor” was not against an ethnic group as it killed as well Russians, as the Tatars were deported for political reason, as the Germans and others minorities who did collaborate with the German Armies (i.e. Cossack of Crimea). As the famine in Ireland and in India under UK regime, the famines in USSR happened because/for economic principles push to the extreme and the refusal by leaders to recognise mistake.

The point of those references were opposite of what you imply, namely that whatever bad things monocultural countries do and whatever bad things happen in them, multicultural countries are no better.


As a larger point, conflict between cultures is one of the surest ways we have for the development and dissemination of improvements of any sort.

All the more reason to look into the emulation of this; or even better stuff. In the future, we hope to be able to grow extra organs in the lab. Organ donation is so crude and random.


Freedom of movement is directly correlated with economic efficiency and power. However, with your tightly-gerrymandered vision of the world, movement would have to be heavily controlled and restricted to prevent more than a small degree of mixing. It would have to be a small degree as obviously if there's no movement between cities or whatever geopolitical unit you have in mind, then ultimately there will be almost no contact of any sort between them, and really that's the end of civilization. Ultimately, this will totally undermine your world unless you plan for periodic purges of some sort.

In the longer-term, preventing free mixing in commerce and settlement means it is absolutely necessary for the state to immediately implement systematic reproductive pairing schedules to minimize inbreeding within cultures.

Basically, you'd be taking some of the worst elements of the Soviet Union's system (not to say that all of yours would have been in the USSR - the folly exceeds even that).

Mixing is a good thing; separation is bad. That's what I think. As per above, to some extent, you seem to be talking about cultural conservatism.


First point: that's unwarranted, silly, dangerous, and inherently impossible and self-contradictory.

I'd like to see your premises, to put it mildly.


Second point: it obviously depends on the country or countries, and the size of the "nearest cit[ies]" we're talking about.

Yeah, this country was what I wrote. I have a feeling though, that the cultural differences between local countryside and local city will become small in any egalitarian country. Sure, different norms and behaviours will develop because of the different surroundings; but purely practical cultural elements (like norms for public transport) are near insignificant in the larger schemes of things.


Yet another problem:

On what basis do you distinguish "group cultures"? How are you going to categorize each and every human such that they can be placed with their groups and, you know, not bring along any other cultures? People are multicultural to a far greater extent than implied by even the smallest-scale terminological specifications.

I don't want to disparage you, but if you can't explain some more of the concrete details of this worldview in a way that addresses these issues, it will be revealed as another poorly-thought-out utopian thought-exercise fatally riddled with inconsistencies

This isn't intended to be a grand political theory and a roadmap to be implemented at the UN to fanfares and with ecstatic politicians. This is realpolitik. It's pragmatism. If you see a bridge that is flooded, year after year, you try to make sure that is built it in a way that makes its road unreachable by the flood water, or you dig the river deeper.

I could generalise this to a theory when it comes to adjusting the height of the bridges to the typical max water level in the rivers they cross. It still would not be an invitation to obsess over this; an eternal struggle for finding the perfect height above rivers, or that bridges should be built so tall that it is inconceivable that water from the river should ever cover its tarmac.

Because that kind of obsession is not the point, the point is to find solutions that work better than many of the most typical implementations of bridges.


I disregard this post by simply pointing you in the direction of the months-long "bygdedyret"-debate in Aftenposten a few years back.

The "bygdedyr" ('village animal') concept has it roots not in culture, but in the social dynamics of smaller groups. Smaller groups are less tolerant, regardless of culture, as even little deviance from shared group ideals can be perceived as a danger to the integrity of the group. Case in point (http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Bygdedyret-lever-i-Oslo-5314713.html#.U5F-TfmSwiV).


Anyway, I see few differences between the identifiers of the rural west and the urban east in Norway, and the differences between the Hutu and the Tutsi.

The rural west has sheep, the east has wheat. The Tutsi had animals, the Hutu grew plants. The west is coast-bound, the east is inland. There is a geographic difference between the Hutu and Tutsi, but I can't recall at the moment what it was. Unlike the Hutu and the Tutsis, the east and west in Norway do not share a common language.

If Norways rural and urban populations equal a monoculture, then so does Rwanda. And Rwanda ended in a genocide...

As I said, cultural identity is to a large extent in the minds of the culture's members. What I'd focus on here, is the fact that these divisions in identity actually existed. No matter how similar these people actually were, they considered themselves as fundamentally distinct. I haven't studied the Rwanda case in detail, so I'll add two short replies dependent on what reality actually is like:

a) The group identity in Hutus and Tutsis was stronger than what you find in Norway; regardless of how similar lives they may live

b) If a) is based on a false premise, the focus needs to be on failing security apparatus, and similar. I've never suggested monocultural societies could not experienced things like genocide.




It's a misconception of those who don't have much experience of how multiculturalism works in practice. For those of us who do live in a multicultural world, we know that "melting pot" is probably a better description of the reality. Throw everything into the mixer, and each person will take what they will from it.

A melting pot quickly ceases to be multicultural, as the cultures merge. Once there is segregation in the frame, the edges might experience melting and mixing, and these changes might spread to cores and centres of each cultural area. But these cores and surrounding areas can still remain culturally distinct for centuries and be anything but melting pots; ensuring a continious multicultural reality.

[Montmorency]

All the more reason to look into the emulation of this; or even better stuff.

Perhaps, but in the near-term that's incredibly vague, like saying we should 'look into improving our political institutions' - well, of course we should, and...?


I'd like to see your premises, to put it mildly.

As I said in the other thread, I am not searching for the ultimate monoculture. I want a monoculture that is varied on an individual level, as opposed to a polyculture that is varied on a group level. I want people to say "I am an individual and have my own opinions" rather than "My people are Flutniks and think X, while those people over there are Gragturts and think Y".


How do you prevent people from automatically forming smaller groups over time? How do you get this monoculture to form in the first place? That's what individuals do: they form groups, and are indeed constituted in such a way as to want very much to cooperate with these groups. As an aside, keep in mind that nationality per-se affect culture, but is not equivalent to it.


This is realpolitik. It's pragmatism. If you see a bridge that is flooded, year after year, you try to make sure that is built it in a way that makes it's road unreachable by the flood water, or you dig the river deeper.

So where's the pragmatism? You're talking about what you'd like to do or see done in a meta sense here, but you're not really offering any solutions.

Fundamentally, are you sure what you are talking about couldn't just be replaced by 'a programme to teach citizens critical and independent thinking'?

[Viking]

Perhaps, but in the near-term that's incredibly vague, like saying we should 'look into improving our political institutions' - well, of course we should, and...?

The fact that it has benefits does not make it the best system, not even in practice. You can read the reply this way, alternatively: So what?


How do you prevent people from automatically forming smaller groups over time? How do you get this monoculture to form in the first place? That's what individuals do: they form groups, and are indeed constituted in such a way as to want very much to cooperate with these groups. As an aside, keep in mind that nationality per-se affect culture, but is not equivalent to it.

I don't have any intent to prevent people from forming groups. My intent is to avoid the facilitation of multiculturalism on a larger scale, as far as that is feasible and reasonable.


So where's the pragmatism? You're talking about what you'd like to do or see done in a meta sense here, but you're not really offering any solutions.

I've already offered the most relevant solution for the world today: don't accept mass-immigration. Be conscious of the segregation that it may cause.


Fundamentally, are you sure what you are talking about couldn't just be replaced by 'a programme to teach citizens critical and independent thinking'?

...which I theorise will work best in non-partisan environments. Segregated societies are ideal for partisan thinking, methinks.

My primary goal with non-multiculturalism is the stabilisation of society, anyway.

[Gilrandir]

I beg to differ. The majority of the French language is derived from a single linguistic set. The English language has several distinct sets of rules and customs, including famously farmyard animals whose name changes depending whether you're looking after the animal or eating it.

Slough (pronounced sl-ow, rhyming with plough): a town in southern England.
Slough (pronounced sl-uff, rhyming with rough): a layer of dead skin tissue.
The mixed character of a language's origin can't be a clue to determine how mono/multicultural is the present-day society which uses it.


The “holodomor” was not against an ethnic group as it killed as well Russians,
It was aimed against the whole of Ukraine, no matter people of what nationalities inhabited it. The borders of Ukraine (albeit only administrative at that time) were sealed so people from Ukraine were not allowed to leave it and very often they saw no famine outside it (for example across the river in Western Ukraine - then a part of Poland - or in Russia).
And finally:
@ all participants of this discussion:
You may argue back and forth, but the problem is that whether you want it or not, multiculturalism (as a trend within globalization) is here to stay and exacerbate. Period.

[Montmorency]

I don't have any intent to prevent people from forming groups. My intent is to avoid the facilitation of multiculturalism on a larger scale, as far as that is feasible and reasonable.

I've already offered the most relevant solution for the world today: don't accept mass-immigration. Be conscious of the segregation that it may cause.

???

You don't see the contradiction?

Anyway, so you are not really for monoculturalism as much as against multiculturalism, right? Otherwise, I see little reason to prevent cultures from assimilating such that there are later on fewer distinct cultures...


The fact that it has benefits does not make it the best system, not even in practice. You can read the reply this way, alternatively: So what?

Once before I was accused of dealing in "meaningless abstractions", but this...


My primary goal with non-multiculturalism is the stabilisation of society, anyway.

That's at least a little more specific. But the best way to achieve this has nothing to do with how many cultures (however you identify them) occupy a given space - it's to form a One-World Government, a single global state.

One of the advantages being, total freedom, and indeed facilitation of, movement for the sake of economic efficiency.

[Sir Moody]

The mixed character of a language's origin can't be a clue to determine how mono/multicultural is the present-day society which uses it.


while you are correct it doesn't say anything about the Modern country, charting the cultural influences on a language through the past can tell you a lot about how the cultures interacted with each other.

the prevalence of so many cultural influences within the English language shows that England was very much a melting pot of many cultures.

Id argue it still is... I am sure most would agree with me

[HoreTore]

while you are correct it doesn't say anything about the Modern country, charting the cultural influences on a language through the past can tell you a lot about how the cultures interacted with each other.

the prevalence of so many cultural influences within the English language shows that England was very much a melting pot of many cultures.

Id argue it still is... I am sure most would agree with me

Language is pretty much the number one cultural identifier.

EDIT: But that may be simply because most of those with a cultural degree started out studying literature...

[Fisherking]

There is nothing wrong with a cosmopolitan multiethnic population but if you do not have the uniting force of a dominant culture you are asking for trouble.

Multiculturalism is a destructive myth. One will predominate.

[Gilrandir]

Language is pretty much the number one cultural identifier.

But not the languages used on the territory in question in the past. That was my point.



Multiculturalism is a destructive myth. One will predominate.
What about Belgium?

[The Lurker Below]

Bringing the basketball player and our neighbor Jalen home from the game last night we stopped by Sonic to get half price afte 8 shakes and Jalen ordered a Sour Apple Freeze instead. So I was like, "hey Jalen, don't you want the watermelon freeze," and everybody laughed. /shrug

People will either figure out how to play nice or they'll be stuck hanging out with the haters while we lovers get along without them.

[Viking]

???

You don't see the contradiction?

No. I am talking about groups that already exist when I talk about avoiding multiculturalism. The mechanisms involved when working against existing cultures getting solid foothold in new geographical entities is very different from preventing people from creating new groups. The latter is likely to require considerably more dubious tactics in order to be successful.


Anyway, so you are not really for monoculturalism as much as against multiculturalism, right? Otherwise, I see little reason to prevent cultures from assimilating such that there are later on fewer distinct cultures...

I think globalisation is much better at assimilation than mass-immigration.



Once before I was accused of dealing in "meaningless abstractions", but this...

You say


Problems:

As a larger point, conflict between cultures is one of the surest ways we have for the development and dissemination of improvements of any sort.

I say "where do you want to go with this?". Are you suggesting we need a world with many cultures so that technology will advance?



That's at least a little more specific. But the best way to achieve this has nothing to do with how many cultures (however you identify them) occupy a given space - it's to form a One-World Government, a single global state.

One of the advantages being, total freedom, and indeed facilitation of, movement for the sake of economic efficiency.

Good luck agreeing on the laws for this state without first making major differences between the cultures vanish.

[Brenus]

“The point of those references were opposite of what you imply, namely that whatever bad things monocultural countries do and whatever bad things happen in them, multicultural countries are no better.” I wanted to emphasise to blame a form of society/model for problems which are not linked with them is not adequate.

“It was aimed against the whole of Ukraine, no matter people of what nationalities inhabited it.” Yes, but not only against Ukraine and Ukrainians, but as scape-goat for a political/economical failure. It was not specifically design on Nationalities or Ethnicities as the Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Russia, including a significant territory in central black earth regions, Volga River regions, the North Caucasus, western Siberia and southern Urals were under the same crisis then repression as the result of the Collectivisation programme.

[Furunculus]

Do we recognise a difference between its use as a descriptive term, and as a normative term:

“The term is used in two broad ways, either descriptively or normatively.[1] As a descriptive term, it usually refers to the simple fact of cultural diversity: it is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometimes at the organizational level, e.g., schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities, or nations.
As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization; in this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.”[2]”

I can fully get behind my statements above, i guess they would be descriptive, but I’m not sure i’d bandwagon on a normative internationalist ideology. Particularly not transnational progressivism, which I regard as a particular kind of foolishness!

[Montmorency]

No. I am talking about groups that already exist when I talk about avoiding multiculturalism. The mechanisms involved when working against existing cultures getting solid foothold in new geographical entities is very different from preventing people from creating new groups. The latter is likely to require considerably more dubious tactics in order to be successful.

No, fundamentally the problem is that you're claiming to fight segregation by institutionalizing segregation.


I think globalisation is much better at assimilation than mass-immigration.

Don't think in terms of individual countries, but in terms of the larger world.

Think of it in terms of migration rather than immigration, in other words. Now, why would you want to prevent or mitigate (stable*) migration?

*I'm obviously not talking about things like hordes of millions of refugees converging in a single region after a big disaster


I say "where do you want to go with this?".

First, you answer this question. How are your aims coherent and achievable? How do they or would they contribute to "stability"?

I want stability as well, but my aim is to simply change human nature, rather than ignoring it entirely and attempting to hold it at arms reach through the power of the state. This can only lead to failure in cycle.


Good luck agreeing on the laws for this state without first making major differences between the cultures vanish.

Not really. Obviously governance would be heavily de-centralized, with the overarching global central government merely retaining the right to intervene wherever and however it wishes, while actively responsible for such things as:

*Migration and movement - of course there would be no national boundaries to worry about any longer
*Monetary and macroeconomic management, e.g. single currency with regional variance, regulation and taxation of multiregional corporations, etc.
*High-technology investment and development (e.g. economic development of extraterrestrial space, applied neuroscience and genomics)
*Global Support Forces for development of infrastructure, mitigation of environmental damage, etc.

[Viking]

No, fundamentally the problem is that you're claiming to fight segregation by institutionalizing segregation.

Segregation is segregation as much a plant is a plant. Segregation within the same administrative units = bad, segregation through administrative borders = better.


Don't think in terms of individual countries, but in terms of the larger world.

Think of it in terms of migration rather than immigration, in other words. Now, why would you want to prevent or mitigate (stable*) migration?

*I'm obviously not talking about things like hordes of millions of refugees converging in a single region after a big disaster

Most of the permanent migration between countries today is driven by desperation (poverty and war) as much as opportunity. If all of the world was equally wealthy, the most important mechanisms of migration would be very different compared to what they are today.


First, you answer this question. How are your aims coherent and achievable? How do they or would they contribute to "stability"?

The containment and eventual eradication of multiculturalism is my objective. There are two ways to achieve this:

1) Make sure more large-scale multicultural countries are not created
2) Make all the cultures worldwide approach each other through different processes of globalisation

1) is the easiest to achieve in practice and has therefore had most of my focus. 2) is a lot trickier in practice than it sounds in theory.

How they contribute to stability I've already argued for.


I want stability as well, but my aim is to simply change human nature, rather than ignoring it entirely and attempting to hold it at arms reach through the power of the state. This can only lead to failure in cycle.

If human nature led to cycles if unchanged, we should at some point return to our hunter-gatherer state. You are ignoring the environment humans live in; an environment that has changed tremendously and that is still likely to change tremendously, much thanks to technology.

While the cultures are still as far apart as they are, measures need to be taken to prevent them from clashing. Striving for one culture per country is the quickest and easiest measure to do avoid this (without the use of draconian measures, of course).

It is easier to avoid war between countries than it is within them.


Not really. Obviously governance would be heavily de-centralized, with the overarching global central government merely retaining the right to intervene wherever and however it wishes, while actively responsible for such things as:

Even with governance heavily de-centralised, local regions may time and again wish to opt out, even if the difference in identity is tiny. Just look to the upcoming Scottish vote for independence for an example.

[Montmorency]

Segregation within the same administrative units = bad, segregation through administrative borders = better.

What administrative units?


If all of the world was equally wealthy

:sleepy:


the most important mechanisms of migration would be very different compared to what they are today.


They'd be the same: movement from areas of excess labor to areas of labor demand. Everything else, from arbitrarily-high applicant standards to differences in living standards, is just dressing.


2) Make all the cultures worldwide approach each other through different processes of globalisation

What does that entail, theoretically?


How they contribute to stability I've already argued for.

I've shown that those arguments don't make sense.


If human nature led to cycles if unchanged, we should at some point return to our hunter-gatherer state.

That's a rather extreme and silly argument, that human societies do not experience cycles, or that certain social agendas will not contribute to some such cycles, because we have not specifically cycled back from hunting and gathering (for the most part)??

That's about as solid as saying that there's not cycling because we haven't returned to high heels as mens' fashion.


You are ignoring the environment humans live in; an environment that has changed tremendously and that is still likely to change tremendously, much thanks to technology.

That's what I've said; but I don't see the relevance to your strawman.


While the cultures are still as far apart as they are, measures need to be taken to prevent them from clashing. Striving for one culture per country is the quickest and easiest measure to do avoid this (without the use of draconian measures, of course).

"Quickest and easiest"? So make a case for that. And while you're at it, make a case for this tremendous claim:


It is easier to avoid war between countries than it is within them.


Unless you're equivocating by comparing the current system on one hand to a putative world-state, I don't see how that could be defended.


Even with governance heavily de-centralised, local regions may time and again wish to opt out, even if the difference in identity is tiny. Just look to the upcoming Scottish vote for independence for an example.

Such things are only possible with multiple "nation-states" available as a model. Remove all other states, and separatists have no relative grounding.

[Viking]

What administrative units?

Whatever administrative unit that adequately manages to cater to the desires of its culture rather than exclusively applying the laws cooked up by neighbouring or distant cultures. In practice, typically countries.


:sleepy:

A smiley says considerably less than a hundred words. I have no clue what you are talking about.

Not every person in the world, but the average wealth in each country.


They'd be the same: movement from areas of excess labor to areas of labor demand. Everything else, from arbitrarily-high applicant standards to differences in living standards, is just dressing.

The most important mechanisms today do not have to do with labour demand, they have to with resource scarcity and danger (war).



What does that entail, theoretically?

International projects of cooperation. Cultural elements with international success, thus able to provide common references (movies, books, music etc.). Internationally recognised intellectuals. A shared awareness of most of the biggest news stories. The awareness of the fact that whatever threatens the Earth (asteroids, comets, dying stars; whatever yet undiscovered) can threaten every country equally much.

Whatever stuff that makes more of the daily concerns of Tellusians the same, no matter which country they live in.


I've shown that those arguments don't make sense.

Pretty sure you didn't.


That's a rather extreme and silly argument, that human societies do not experience cycles, or that certain social agendas will not contribute to some such cycles, because we have not specifically cycled back from hunting and gathering (for the most part)??

That's about as solid as saying that there's not cycling because we haven't returned to high heels as mens' fashion.

That's what I've said; but I don't see the relevance to your strawman.

Cycles rely on the environment. You can't just assume that a cycle will continue even when the environment changes.

You said that it was necessary to change human nature; else this cycle would continue.



"Quickest and easiest"? So make a case for that.

Why don't you name some measures that are candidates for the speed and easyness awards.


And while you're at it, make a case for this tremendous claim:

Unless you're equivocating by comparing the current system on one hand to a putative world-state, I don't see how that could be defended.

Borders between countries tend to pass through sparsely and unpopulated areas. Borders between warring groups within countries are a lot more likely to be physically diffuse, non-existent and to pass through densely populated areas. It's easier for peace-keeping forces to prevent military operations with borders of the first category.

Also, when people don't live face-to-face, war between them is almost exclusively started by political leaders. Remove the political leaders and you are likely to stop the war. Basically, there is a massive difference here between professional armies (interstate war) on the one hand and citizen armies and militias on the other (intrastate war).



Such things are only possible with multiple "nation-states" available as a model. Remove all other states, and separatists have no relative grounding.

Possible in what sense? If a region wants to break free, it can - unless you manage to subdue it with some sort of force.

[Papewaio]

"Countries are breaking up in significant numbers due to cultural and ethnical differences. Just in very recent history we have: Kosovo from Serbia, East Timor from Indonesia, South Sudan from Sudan.

As unrecognised\less successful examples there are Kurdistan (from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria), Abkhazia and South-Ossetia from Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan."

Are you sure these are failings of a multicultural society or a society where the ruling group is trying to impose just their culture?

Because if you delve into these examples you will find that these are monoculture/mono (central) control failures where the central rulers try and rinse and repeat the same process without regards for local cultures.

Kurds are pretty famous for being ran roughshod over in the Middle East. With the local rulers putting their culture ahead.

East Timor is another case. The locals were pushed around with the Javanese putting there language and people above the locals and not integrating. It is a text book example of the failings of pushing a monoculture onto an invaded populace.

A lot of countries devolve because the citizens only accept one culture so they can't have neighbors of a different ilk. USSR was quite happy to support Russian language in its client states and surpress local cultures. Part politburo centralization part mono culture attempt.

=][=

The English language has many many more words then the average language something in the order of five times as many as it has absorbed languages from around the world add in food and beverages to the mix too.

So for me language isn't the most important part of culture. It is food and celebrations. Want an easy way to learn a culture do it by eating and celebrating with the locals.

[Viking]

"Countries are breaking up in significant numbers due to cultural and ethnical differences. Just in very recent history we have: Kosovo from Serbia, East Timor from Indonesia, South Sudan from Sudan.

As unrecognised\less successful examples there are Kurdistan (from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria), Abkhazia and South-Ossetia from Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan."

Are you sure these are failings of a multicultural society or a society where the ruling group is trying to impose just their culture?

Because if you delve into these examples you will find that these are monoculture/mono (central) control failures where the central rulers try and rinse and repeat the same process without regards for local cultures.

Kurds are pretty famous for being ran roughshod over in the Middle East. With the local rulers putting their culture ahead.

East Timor is another case. The locals were pushed around with the Javanese putting there language and people above the locals and not integrating. It is a text book example of the failings of pushing a monoculture onto an invaded populace.

A lot of countries devolve because the citizens only accept one culture so they can't have neighbors of a different ilk. USSR was quite happy to support Russian language in its client states and surpress local cultures. Part politburo centralization part mono culture attempt.

It's a lot like the debate of the chicken or the egg. Did the minority desire autonomy because they were oppressed, or did the minority become oppressed because they desired autonomy?

For me, the answer is "a lot of both". I view this friction between the central authorities and minorities as an inherent trait of multiculturalism.

The minority does not recognise the authority, given by their numbers, to the majority. The minority want to have their own laws and norms for their own lands and communities, the majority is reluctant to give them this as it would undermine the status of their own laws and norms.

[HoreTore]

It's a lot like the debate of the chicken or the egg. Did the minority desire autonomy because they were oppressed, or did the minority become oppressed because they desired autonomy?

For me, the answer is "a lot of both". I view this friction between the central authorities and minorities as an inherent trait of multiculturalism.

The minority does not recognise the authority, given by their numbers, to the majority. The minority want to have their own laws and norms for their own lands and communities, the majority is reluctant to give them this as it would undermine the status of their own laws and norms.

Please enlighten me as to how this is any different from a general "Urban vs rural"-thing?

How is what you described different from, say, the cultural battle between the US deep south and east coast?

[Viking]

Please enlighten me as to how this is any different from a general "Urban vs rural"-thing?

How is what you described different from, say, the cultural battle between the US deep south and east coast?

Well, duh. If you can't spot the differences between urban vs rural and, as an example, Georgian vs Abkhazian, you need to read up.


The Abkhazians consider themselves a distinct ethnic group from the Georgians, while both sides of the rural-urban and east-west-north-south divides consider themselves part of the same ethnic group. Urban and rural groups of the same ethnicity tend to view themselves as different parts of the same organism. Different ethnic groups tend to view each other as separate organisms.

Just look to what actually happens in practice to see that there is a difference: I can't think of any country that split into Urbanistan and Ruralistan. Northistan and Southistan is more likely, but not so likely without considerable cultural differences (and there does seem to be considerable cultural differences within the US).

In part, the difference is qualitative: Identity versus ideology.

In part it is quantitative: not many people will seriously support autonomy without some concept of differing ethnic identities. Many Scots will vote in favour of secession, but if you pick an area within Scotland and ask if it should secede from the rest of Scotland, the amount of serious support in most cases (perhaps all, I don't know Scotland well enough) would drop to near zero.

Once the cultural differences reach a certain point (like languages that are not mutually intelligible), I think a great deal of serious support for separatism is always going to be present, even if most of it may lay dormant.

[HoreTore]

Seems like you need to read up on civil war history then, and realize just how many civil wars are the result of the differences between the progressive and urban, and the rural backwater.

Basically every (attempted or successful) commie revolution pitted the urban population on the commie side, and the rural population on the fascist side. Sure, there was some overlap, but that was the main split. Funnily enough, in Asia this was the other way around.

Africa is riddled with conflicts between a largely urban elite on the one hand, and the rural peasantry on the other. Sure, Africa has a lot of ethnic strife as well, but they sure have their share of conflicts between various factions within a given ethnic group.


On a final note, it seems like you have completely abandoned your premise in the OP; this is no longer about culture or multiculture, now you are arguing in terms of race.

Your beef is not with multiculturalism, your beef is with multiracial countries.

[Fisherking]

Seems like you need to read up on civil war history then, and realize just how many civil wars are the result of the differences between the progressive and urban, and the rural backwater.

Basically every (attempted and successful) commie revolution pitted the urban population on the commie side, and the rural population on the fascist side. Sure, there was some overlap, but that was the main split. Funnily enough, in Asia this was the other way around.

Africa is riddled with conflicts between a largely urban elite on the one hand, and the rural peasantry on the other. Sure, Africa has a lot of ethnic strife as well, but they sure have their share of conflicts between various factions within a given ethnic group.


On a final note, it seems like you have completely abandoned your premise in the OP; this is no longer about culture or multiculture, now you are arguing in terms of race.

Your beef is not with multiculturalism, your beef is with multiracial countries.


You are talking class warfare not ethnic differences. With a good line and enough agitation and propaganda you can turn most people into a group (mob) who want vengeance on a perceived enemy.

[HoreTore]

You are talking class warfare not ethnic differences. With a good line and enough agitation and propaganda you can turn most people into a group (mob) who want vengeance on a perceived enemy.

I am talking of having multiple cultures in the same country.

I do not see how a society with clear social division is any different in that regard than a society with clear racial divisions.

Further, the premise of the OP was about multiculturalism, not ethnicity. My post followed that, even though it seems the discussion has turned from culture to ethnicity.

And I haven't even touched on religion yet; remember that every calm and functioning democracy in the world has a majority population of one religious belief (usually atheist) with a large and very vocal minority population of a vastly different religious belief (usually christian). According to the premises of the OP, we should all be living in a permanent war zone.

The societies with a single religious belief? Bloodthirsty and oppressive dictatorship, every last one of them. In fact, modern democracy itself only arose when we found ourselves without a single unifying religion...

[Viking]

No, not race. Ethnic group ≠ race. In practice, there is in general a close relationship between DNA (biological ethnicity) and culture, anyway. It is pretty much unavoidable. No matter how much you mix populations, once the mixing stops, differences in DNA will develop (from probability alone, this is pretty much a given). Religion is also closely related to culture. Heck, to a large extent, religion is culture.

I asked you to name countries where the rural and urban areas formed their own separate countries, not examples of a rural/urban divide leading to civil war. The differences you speak of are hardly cultural, they are economic and class-based. Introduce those differences to a multicultural country, and you'll get things 10 times worse.

But anyway, I think this is a rather inane track of debate. In a monocultural country, differences can develop; true. But if you insert a highly different culture in a relatively monocultural country, you are moving several stages forward towards danger in one go. You don't need to wait for the differences to become massive (it is not a given that they actually ever do become massive), they are massive from the start.

[HoreTore]

So, religion is culture, eh?

Then please, do explain how a culture(Norwegian) can be termed monocultural when the group contains to vastly different religious groups(atheist and christian)? If that's your definition of culture, Norway is a multicultural society way before you mix in any immigrants(and I do agree with this).

And please, do explain how our racial(or ethnic, if you prefer) preferences are weaker than our religious preferences. Please include a mention of 16th century Germany in your explanation.

Further, with your reliance on Abkhazians, I have to wonder if you have any deeper definition than simple (reinforced) self-identification.

And that's pretty much the definition of arbitrary, and I can't see why anyone should really care.

[Strike For The South]

Multiculturalism doesnt work, that's why the USA is such a backwater

[Papewaio]

Even in a nuclear family you can have different cultures.

Speech patterns, music preferences, food choices, religious beliefs. Diversity is no more a weakness then adding chrome to iron.

[HoreTore]

Even in a nuclear family you can have different cultures.

Speech patterns, music preferences, food choices, religious beliefs. Diversity is no more a weakness then adding chrome to iron.

I'm very fond of splitting people into all sorts of different groups in order to highlight differences, similarities and other interesting aspects of our society.

I don't disagree with an ethnic label in principle, but I find using the term ethnicity with regards to culture is too loosely defined, arbitrary and broad to produce any meaningful insights.

In short, there are better ways of grouping people than ethnicity. Personally, I'm very fond of the traits arising from different occupations within a social class...

[Husar]

I just wanted to note that I like how Viking made a new thread for this and now I do not have to argue him anymore because others do it so much better. And yes, I still think the idea makes little sense for most of the reasons given by HoreTore, Montmorency and others.
There is hardly a country with an actual monoculture and it's usually the attempt to create one that results in violence.

[HoreTore]

There is hardly a country with an actual monoculture

North Korea might qualify, if you ignore the party elite.... A wonderful country for sure.

[Pannonian]

I'm very fond of splitting people into all sorts of different groups in order to highlight differences, similarities and other interesting aspects of our society.

I don't disagree with an ethnic label in principle, but I find using the term ethnicity with regards to culture is too loosely defined, arbitrary and broad to produce any meaningful insights.

In short, there are better ways of grouping people than ethnicity. Personally, I'm very fond of the traits arising from different occupations within a social class...

AFAICS, post-colonialist criticism is closely related to Marxist criticism, in how they categorise people into groups, and study relations in terms of within group and without group. The difference being how they do the categorisation. But they're not unique in that, as there are other, probably less popular, forms of criticism, that work the same way. Ethno-based criticism, particularly from the perspective of a strong, established settlement, has been taboo in the west since WW2. Quite right too. The best thing we can do, when we see this, is to call it for what it is.

Personally, I think a neglected form of criticism is the study of the relationship between football culture, community and the individual. At least within the UK that I know, football is the closest there is to a national religion in practice, with organised schisms within an overall structure. And with Bosman, EU employment laws, and the sheer competition of the Premier and Champions Leagues, ethnic differences are practically ignored in the midst of a culture with different values than one based on how one looks or sounds.

[Papewaio]

Multiculturalism doesnt work, that's why the USA is such a backwater

Its in the same boat as Canada and Australia. Abject failures the lot of them.

[Viking]

So, religion is culture, eh?

Then please, do explain how a culture(Norwegian) can be termed monocultural when the group contains to vastly different religious groups(atheist and christian)? If that's your definition of culture, Norway is a multicultural society way before you mix in any immigrants(and I do agree with this).

It's culture, not a culture. Like language.


And please, do explain how our racial(or ethnic, if you prefer) preferences are weaker than our religious preferences. Please include a mention of 16th century Germany in your explanation.

Preferences for what?

I don't see much trouble with a multiethnic society in itself as long as there is no identity attached to the ethnicity (beyond obvious superficial markers like skin colour etc.).


Further, with your reliance on Abkhazians, I have to wonder if you have any deeper definition than simple (reinforced) self-identification.

Definition of what? Culture? Multiculturalism?


And that's pretty much the definition of arbitrary, and I can't see why anyone should really care.

I see a clear trend, involving highly different countries. Just look at some of the most prominent active/recently active armed conflicts in the world right now:


South Sudan: largely Dinka vs Nuer [counted]
Syria: Originally an uprising against a dictator, but ethnic differences may act as fuel here as well [not counted]
Ukraine: would largely be impossible would without a split between Ukrainian and Russian identity present in the country [counted]
Afghanistan: multi-ethnic country, but religious infighting and foreign troops seems to be the main cause of fighting [not counted]
Iraq: the Shia-Sunni divide is central to the conflict [counted]
Central African Republic: Christians vs Muslims [counted]
Somalia: Religious infighting, but also other elements. [not counted]
Nigeria: islamist insurgency, fighting against a secular (http://books.google.com.ng/books?id=_o7WNA3iMKsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=secular&f=false) constitution that can be seen as a compromise between Nigeria's massive Christian and Muslim populations. [counted]
Mali: an islamist insurgency as well as a Tuareg insurgency (Tuaregs in the north vs other ethnicities in the south). [counted]


So, in this list 6 out of 9 armed conflicts are heavily rooted in multuculturalism and facets of multiculturalism. I don't see any purely rural vs urban conflicts among the recent armed conflicts.



Multiculturalism doesnt work, that's why the USA is such a backwater

The US doesn't exactly have history of cultural tolerance and peace. Native Americans, slaves (came from local African culture(s)), Mormons..

[Strike For The South]

The US doesn't exactly have history of cultural tolerance and peace. Native Americans, slaves (came from local African culture(s)), Mormons..

LOL. "Let me point to incidents" What does this prove other than the normal civil strife that all countries go through?

[Viking]

LOL. "Let me point to incidents" What does this prove other than the normal civil strife that all countries go through?

Not thinking about incidents. As most/many nations used to do, minority cultures were oppressed. This has some places eradicated all of the original culture (did any cultural elements from West Africa survive the slavery in the US?), other places "taken the edge" of the local cultures through force, making them fit the majority culture better.

Or what?

[The Lurker Below]

The US doesn't exactly have history of cultural tolerance and peace. Native Americans, slaves (came from local African culture(s)), Mormons..

history. "multicultural didn't work in the past." Thank you for the history lesson. Put some effort into it and you will also find current problems. But there are exceptions and there will be more. Thanks to Kadagar for providing http://republicofaustin.com/2011/03/28/does-this-dot-map-show-austins-racial-divide-spoiler-white-people-prefer-north-and-west-austin/
He thought he was pointing out segregation. Did he fail to realize he looked at a few square miles and saw several dozen ethnicities all peacefully living in very close proximity to each other? Thousands of people of each group?

[Kadagar_AV]

history. "multicultural didn't work in the past." Thank you for the history lesson. Put some effort into it and you will also find current problems. But there are exceptions and there will be more. Thanks to Kadagar for providing http://republicofaustin.com/2011/03/28/does-this-dot-map-show-austins-racial-divide-spoiler-white-people-prefer-north-and-west-austin/
He thought he was pointing out segregation. Did he fail to realize he looked at a few square miles and saw several dozen ethnicities all peacefully living in very close proximity to each other? Thousands of people of each group?

I thought I was pointing out segregation, because the data points to different ethnic groups clearly showing they do no want to be around the others. That's segregation, no?

The USA has been held up as a positive example here...

1. USA came to be what it is because of ethnic cleansing. Genocide, if you so will (the Indians).

2. It became a power factor much thanks to slavery.

3. It has huge racial conflicts and disputes even after all these years.

4. the different cultures within the USA still like to stay on their own, with their own.

5. USA is the country that brought us extreme capitalism... As it looks now this system is absolute rubbish and a candidate to "factors that brought on the second dark age"... But oh well... I guess I am just saying that we should wait to see how the US politics actually works itself out in this world, as it CLEARLY shows huge signs of failing as is.

Also, please remind the history US came from, and you will understand why it's stupid, not to say moronic, to bring it up as a positive example.

[Viking]

history. "multicultural didn't work in the past." Thank you for the history lesson. Put some effort into it and you will also find current problems. But there are exceptions and there will be more. Thanks to Kadagar for providing http://republicofaustin.com/2011/03/28/does-this-dot-map-show-austins-racial-divide-spoiler-white-people-prefer-north-and-west-austin/

Per my previous post, the point was the legacy of history. The cultures that could have competed with the European American culture(s) were abrased and attempted abrased to the points were they would no longer be too different. The African culture(s) seems to have no traces left (I don't know about any active campaigns to eradicate it; probably not necessary), American Indians no longer live in tipis with a nomadic lifestyle, Mormons gave up on polygamy.

The more different the cultures within a multicultural society are, the more truly multicultural it is.

[Papewaio]

UK is a multicultural society as is Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

My mum is Welsh, my dad is a Kiwi of English & Swedish extraction. I was born in Fiji and raised in New Zealand which is essentially a Pakeha and Maori bicultural country. Like one in four Australians I was born overseas and my wife is from Taiwan. We are not unusual as either individuals or as a couple.

Australia is a very successful multicultural society in its modern form. It's dark past is mainly due to monocultural activities. That is also true for the US. Most multicultural countries had a past history of being a monocultural state which was the vogue thing for colonies to do. With time they have transmuted and became more tolerant and open and more successful and wealthy.

So yes the dark past of slavery, starvation (buffalo decimation) and germ warfare are certainly evil. But that's what you get in a monocultural driven society.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Monoculture is boring. In a world where morality is simply manners and right and wrong are subjective and weak constructs, interesting is king.

Give me guns and I'll take a much higher crime rate for delicious food and interesting.

[HoreTore]

UK is a multicultural society as is Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

My mum is Welsh, my dad is a Kiwi of English & Swedish extraction. I was born in Fiji and raised in New Zealand which is essentially a Pakeha and Maori bicultural country. Like one in four Australians I was born overseas and my wife is from Taiwan. We are not unusual as either individuals or as a couple.

Australia is a very successful multicultural society in its modern form. It's dark past is mainly due to monocultural activities. That is also true for the US. Most multicultural countries had a past history of being a monocultural state which was the vogue thing for colonies to do. With time they have transmuted and became more tolerant and open and more successful and wealthy.

So yes the dark past of slavery, starvation (buffalo decimation) and germ warfare are certainly evil. But that's what you get in a monocultural driven society.

As Australia is clearly on its way to becoming the next Somalia*, your point is moot.


*a "monocultural" society...

[Papewaio]

As Australia is clearly on its way to becoming the next Somalia*, your point is moot.


*a "monocultural" society...

Only if you enter Australia by boat...

[HoreTore]

Only if you enter Australia by boat...

Why not just burn all the harbours and be done with it?

[Fragony]

UK is a multicultural society as is Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

My mum is Welsh, my dad is a Kiwi of English & Swedish extraction. I was born in Fiji and raised in New Zealand which is essentially a Pakeha and Maori bicultural country. Like one in four Australians I was born overseas and my wife is from Taiwan. We are not unusual as either individuals or as a couple.

Australia is a very successful multicultural society in its modern form. It's dark past is mainly due to monocultural activities. That is also true for the US. Most multicultural countries had a past history of being a monocultural state which was the vogue thing for colonies to do. With time they have transmuted and became more tolerant and open and more successful and wealthy.

So yes the dark past of slavery, starvation (buffalo decimation) and germ warfare are certainly evil. But that's what you get in a monocultural driven society.

The UK is an advanced multicultural society, parts are no longer multicultural but monocultural, sharia-zones where the police won't come unless they are heavily armed. That is going to happen to the other countries you mention as well. I have family in Perth and Sydney and it has the same problems as any European country that has been enriched. Islam. Disclaimer, it is hardly a problem in the Neds despite a large muslim population.

[Greyblades]

You need to stop reading the daily mail frags.

[Sir Moody]

The UK is an advanced multicultural society, parts are no longer multicultural but monocultural, sharia-zones where the police won't come unless they are heavily armed.

Bovine excrement - our Police have no such problem and are very rarely "heavily armed" I have no idea where you even picked this up from - even the Daily Mail would never try to claim this...

[Fragony]

You need to stop reading the daily mail frags.

I don't read Daily Mail. These neighbourhoods are all over Europe, the worst in Southern France and Belgium. Good luch tryin to live with tolerance and respect where culture has been enriched. There are only demands.

[Viking]

My mum is Welsh, my dad is a Kiwi of English & Swedish extraction. I was born in Fiji and raised in New Zealand which is essentially a Pakeha and Maori bicultural country. Like one in four Australians I was born overseas and my wife is from Taiwan. We are not unusual as either individuals or as a couple.

I am sure truly multicultural families can have some serious trouble if the cultures don't mix well, but at least those troubles, should there be any, are likely to stay within the family - so not anyone else's business.


So yes the dark past of slavery, starvation (buffalo decimation) and germ warfare are certainly evil. But that's what you get in a monocultural driven society.

It's what you get in countries that do not respect individual integrity. If a state respects its inhabitants, it also has (up to a certain point) to respect their culture.


Give me guns and I'll take a much higher crime rate for delicious food and interesting.

Just because you import cultural elements into your own culture doesn't mean you live in a multicultural society. Jeez.

'monoculture' might be a bad word choice, since so many seem to associate it with cultural conservatism, but that's the only term I can think of as an antonym to 'multiculture'.

[Pannonian]

Bovine excrement - our Police have no such problem and are very rarely "heavily armed" I have no idea where you even picked this up from - even the Daily Mail would never try to claim this...

Frag would probably think the Thames Walk was a journey through wartorn territory, starting from the east end of the most multicultural city in the world, and continuing unbroken through the centre, and through to the west. When I did it, armed only with a backpack carrying food and water, the only discomfort I encountered was weary feet. Sometimes I wonder if the London Frag and others describe is related to the London I've known all my life.

[Fragony]

Big lol at that. Have an awesome time celebrating multiculturalism in Brussels or Marseillei, and yes Londen, you know the one you know. Where islam has settled itself things change, really fast. That is also especially true for the Vikings.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just because you import cultural elements into your own culture doesn't mean you live in a multicultural society. Jeez.

'monoculture' might be a bad word choice, since so many seem to associate it with cultural conservatism, but that's the only term I can think of as an antonym to 'multiculture'.

I live in a suburb of NYC. I went to Stonybrook. Where did you go? Valhalla? What do you know about multikulti?


White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American)
44.0%





—Non-Hispanic
33.3%





Black or African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American)
25.5%





Hispanic or Latino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans) (of any race)
28.6%





Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American)
12.7%



What do you think the demographics of Oslo look like? A friggin white power parade. Go lick a bowl

[Viking]

I live in a suburb of NYC. I went to Stonybrook. Where did you go? Valhalla? What do you know about multikulti?

Did you live the Central African Republic? Did you live in Iraq? Did you live in Yugoslavia? What do you know about multiculturalism?

NYC (and the U.S. in general) does have some serious murder rates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/lets-hold-off-celebrating_b_4405153.html) to answer for:



This year, New York City is on pace to see 335 murders if the trend for the first 10 months (279 murders) continues.


London, a city of 8.3 million people (the same size as New York City), 113 people were murdered that year. Even so, the Brits viewed it as a serious crisis. And last year a total of 99 people were murdered in London, the lowest figure since 1970.



Whatever the causes are. London also seems to be fairly multicultural; but that doesn't mean the histories and the dynamics are the same in the two cities, a more in-depth comparison would be necessary in order to make an argument in that department.




White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American)
44.0%





—Non-Hispanic
33.3%





Black or African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American)
25.5%





Hispanic or Latino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans) (of any race)
28.6%





Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American)
12.7%




That table doesn't say anything about culture, only ethnicity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm just kidding, I just wanted to be a jerk. But NYC is absolutely multicultural. Have you ever been?

[Viking]

Have you ever been?

Have I ever been running naked through the Sahara? No.


Been what exactly?

[ICantSpellDawg]

TO NYC, KNUCKLEFART

[Viking]

Nope.

[Fragony]

I'm just kidding, I just wanted to be a jerk. But NYC is absolutely multicultural. Have you ever been?

That's different, can't be compared, the USA is multicultural by nature. It's not an ideoligy but a general concensus. In Europe multiculturalism is pretty much a religion, it's forced upon us. I wouldn't call NYC multicultural but multi-ethnic instead, there is consensus over being an American. It isn't all that straightforward though, watched the match against Spain at the local coffeeshop where just about everybody is Maroccan or Polish and they cheer for the Dutch team just as much as we do. Europe is complicated.

[Furunculus]

Multiculturalism doesnt work, that's why the USA is such a backwater

isn't america working the melting pot model?

again, i ask if we are discussing multiculturalism in the descriptive or the normative sense...

[Pannonian]

Tell you what, I wouldn't mind state-imposed monoculture if the culture we use is humanist secularism a la France. Logical argument behind it, coherent and consistent application without favouring any other culture, and it disarms most of the more harmful aspects of religion. However, if anyone tries to argue monoculture on the basis of Christianity, I'll cry BS. The basic philosophical aspects of Christianity can work as well in a secular system as any other culture, and its pseudo-philosophical origins should mean it should function better in such a system. However, the religious aspects can go jump in the sea, like all the other religions.

[Papewaio]

You might want to read the fine print on Christianity. Apparently they can't jump in the sea only walk on it...

[Greyblades]

Gets horredously frustrating at bath time, I can tell you.

[Papewaio]

It's worse when trying to tell the police officer you only had hick three hick cups of wine er water.