why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

[Papewaio]

So just getting some of the fact sorted out. Slavery did exist post Roman Empire in Europe: Check.

Slavery in Europe was dieing out in the 15th Century in favour of serfdom (economic not iron clad slavery).
Some of the Nation States profited from slavery on and off right up to the mid 19th century. Check.

That's true for the menfolk but given Fragony's definition of slavery:
"If you want it to be, 19th century serfdom in Russia was basically the last of what is close to slavery in Europe. Poor working conditions, all times. But not real slavery, where someone is your property by law "

When did the women cease being the property of their fathers/brothers/husbands?

=][=

As for the question can an economy thrive on having a hetrogenous population.
Demographics for Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_demographics

We manage, its a harsh environment so there is some give and take with the statistics, It's winter here and I'm in jeans, t-shirt and long sleeved top with the windows and doors opened. The beanie is probably extreme, but it helps protect my head when I headbutt the keyboard.

[Centurion1]

All those statistics tell me are that the vast majority of the nation is Western European.

[Papewaio]

Yes as it states on the page: "About 90% of Australia's population is of European descent. Over 8% of the population is of Asian descent (predominantly Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino and Indian)"

[Centurion1]

that is a pretty homogeneous population.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There is no country in north and west Europe with a 90% European population, with, I think, the exception of Ireland and Finland. There's none in the America's either, save perhaps for Uruguay.

[Centurion1]

There is no country in north and west Europe with a 90% European population, with, I think, the exception of Ireland and Finland. There's none in the America's either, save perhaps for Uruguay.

Would you say then that Australia with a 90% European population is relatively homogeneous as a society? Even if one were to distinguish between Eastern and Western Europe the number would be very high.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'm starting to think the word you intended to use is homogeneous, i.e of same descent?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Would you say then that Australia with a 90% European population is relatively heterogeneous (/ homogeneous) as a society?

In America, on a census you fill in 'white', or 'Asian', or some such broad category. In Europe, one must identifies 'European' with greater detail. There is no such thing as 'European' in Europe. I can tell a Spaniard from an Italian from a mile away. A German from a Briton. Danes of a conservative nature will speak of Yugoslavs as 'Blacks'.

So there is more to it than 90% European. Denmark is 80 percent European, but this eighty percent is homogenous. Australia is 90 percent European, but much more heterogenous. Australia has large Greek, Lebanese communities. Lotsa other wogs. It is a big, federal country, young, colonial, with an indigenous population and a recent shift towards immigration from its regio. Percentages don;t tell the whole story.

Still, I think Australians underestimate the diversity of modern European societies. Or North America. This is not the 1950s anymore. Britons nowadays move to Australia because it feels so European, because they feel at home more in the outback than in Leeds.

[Tellos Athenaios]

When did the women cease being the property of their fathers/brothers/husbands?

I'll leave this to PVC, but suffice to say that prior to the code Napoléon in the Netherlands married women were often financially and legally independent from their husband.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So just getting some of the fact sorted out. Slavery did exist post Roman Empire in Europe: Check.

Slavery in Europe was dieing out in the 15th Century in favour of serfdom (economic not iron clad slavery).
Some of the Nation States profited from slavery on and off right up to the mid 19th century. Check.

Owning someone's life is different to owning someone's body, in medieval Europe slavery and Serfdom could mean the same thing, English slaves prior to the Conquest probably had more rights than English peasents thereafter. My point was, and remains, that the "slavery" practiced from antiquity onwards was completely different from the racial slavery blacks were subjected to in the following centuries. In America you could point at a Black man and say "he's mine" and he was your slave, he had no rights.

That's true for the menfolk but given Fragony's definition of slavery:
"If you want it to be, 19th century serfdom in Russia was basically the last of what is close to slavery in Europe. Poor working conditions, all times. But not real slavery, where someone is your property by law "

When did the women cease being the property of their fathers/brothers/husbands?

Really early in Iceland, really late in Britian, somewhere in the middle in the Netherlands. We're talking a 1,000 year bracket here. Still, men never "owned" their wives, they simply controlled their assetts. Under Roman Law women had assetts of their own, under Christian Law husband and wife "owned" each other in perpetuity, just like a feudal land grant, and the husband just had all the control.

Not saying it was great being a woman then.

[Ironside]

Really early in Iceland, really late in Britian, somewhere in the middle in the Netherlands. We're talking a 1,000 year bracket here. Still, men never "owned" their wives, they simply controlled their assetts. Under Roman Law women had assetts of their own, under Christian Law husband and wife "owned" each other in perpetuity, just like a feudal land grant, and the husband just had all the control.

Not saying it was great being a woman then.

Also one of those blurry issues. I would say that the last remanant is when marital rape became a formal crime (were the Soviets were early to do interestingly enough), starting in the 1960-ties outside the communist block.

Widows had considerble power of their own and the grip on unmarried women started to be loosened during the industrialism, that indirectly caused marriage age to go up -> They started to be able to work and support themselves.

[HoreTore]

Men stopped owning their women when our women left the kitchen and entered the workforce.

So, 1968.

[rory_20_uk]

Women had left for the workforce in certainly WW2 if not WW1.

[HoreTore]

Women had left for the workforce in certainly WW2 if not WW1.

The majority of women were still housewives in the 50's.