Multicultural versus monocultural societies and 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]

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 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?

[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/...d-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?

[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]

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...

[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.

[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.