Multicultural versus monocultural societies and countries

[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.

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

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.

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.