Are there already was a multicultural and diverse society before that really worked and prospered ?

USSR

Well, there are places today that have been multicultural for a long time, and work just fine(Switzerland, for example).
Of course, this is a natural multiculturalism between cultures that kinda got along to a degree, not "let's drop people with wildly different cultures, languages and religion from the other end of the planet and call it a society"
this.

By the grammar in your title I assume this is just a racebait thread made by someone not from Veeky Forums.

If you actually wanted to discuss this topic and had an interest in learning and not only validating your own personal opinions, you would have proof read your shit.

Stop shitposting and read some shit by yourself. Also check out coastal settlements in Kenya like Mombasa. It had a blend of Asians, Arabs and natives living in a relatively multicultural society due to trading and travel.

>Well, there are places today that have been multicultural for a long time, and work just fine(Switzerland, for example).

Please lay out the specific and fundamental cultural differences that exist in Switzerland today or in the past between the EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN "multicultural inhabitants" of Switzerland.

It's like saying the US has always been a multicultural society via immigration. If 90% of the population was white Europeans until the 1960s, how is that multicultural?

Existing within the same country is not the same as existing within the same society. People in empires can generally ignore each other and run themselves like they want to and their culture dictates. When multiple cultures exist in the exact same place though, everyone has different ideas, and how are you supposed to get shit done? Usually by suppressing the ones that don't agree with you.

SWITZERLAND'S SOCIOCULTURE IS HOMOGENEOUS; YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT MULTICULTURALISM IS, NOR WHAT WHAT A CULTURE IS.

NOT LANGUAGE, NOR ETHNICITY, NOR NATIONALITY, DETERMINE CULTURE; WHAT DETERMINES CULTURE IS THE NATIONAL, AND OR THE FOLKIC IDEAL, THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE OF THEMSELVES, AND THE MORES DERIVED FROM IT.

New York City for most of its existence.

Sorry i'm french, i don't speak english very well.

>that really worked and prospered

>EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN
Fine, if you want to define multicult as between people who's enticities are from different continents and religion, Dobrogea/Dobruja has everything to schismatic swamp russians, to every ethnicity in the Balkans, to muslims turks and tatars, and have never had interethnic issues.

Even with cruise control you still need to steer, bro.

...

Are you mad, or is that an attempt to make an impression with a gimmick ?
Either way, stop, you faggot.

Besides, you're wrong. Culture is not something that can be categorized that easily. My culture is different from that of my German flatmate, but also from my sister's, and, obviously, from some African immigrant's.
All societies are multicultural, to different degrees. Iceland in the 1800s much less so than England at the same time, sure. But still.
And it's not about nations.
Industrial workers, farmers and merchants of one nation have usually different cultures, and it often ends up in conflict, both cultural and political. And people suffer and die because of it.

>If 90% of the population was white Europeans until the 1960s, how is that multicultural?

The US has always been multicultural in the eyes of any european person, being 90% white doesn't stop it at all from having different cultures, specially with the religious and ethnic diversity.

Mughal India

>one cultural says that all women need to walk around with bags over their heads
>another cultural disagrees on placing any restrictions on the types of clothes a women must wear
>these two cultures will get along just fine in the same society

"lol"

It's the greatest city in the world, faggot.

Yep, pretty much every middle eastern empire from Sumer to pre-islam persia. As most of the world was organized into city-states at the time, they were largley culturally distinct and had different brands of gods. They subjugated each other and regional hegemony meant domination by that CS's particular patron deity. They weren't multikulti but they allowed each area to retain its own identity and ways, and there wasn't a whole lot of effort at trying to assimilate them, just make them pay taxes and supply troops.

World capitols like Babylon, Susa, and Thebes of course would have lots of people from all over but they very much lived by the phrase "when in rome do as the romans do". If the natives felt the foreigners were getting to large in number or too aggressive they could be purged/expelled.

t. Sonny O'Carboniwitz

I imagine ancient middle eastern cities were pretty multicultural

Now that all the cultures got integrated into one, yes. On the other hand back during its immigration period it was a complete shithole of cheap labor and crime and rich fat fucks.

Early America was very multicultural. There were your white European land owners, and then black Africans that were great hard workers in the fields, mixed with the native Americans that didn't die from disease. Multiculturalism was great and enabled America to prosper.

If you actually were mentally functional, you would see past the lettercase and see that he's right.

This grammar gave me cancer

>Now that all the cultures got integrated into one, yes

You clearly don't live here.

...

I've seen it, and the focus of my post was entirely that he still needs to steer with cruise control.

If you don't think there were different cultures living in Roman Italy, North Africa, Balkans, Greece, Anatolia, and the Levant then you've never even given the subject a cursory glance. Jewish revolts ring any bells?

Achaemenid Persia agglomerated tons of different ethno-religious groups.

>national, and or the folkic ideal

Oh? So is the modern United States not multi-cultural because everyone identifies as an American?

JEWS ARE AN EXCEPTION SINCE ONE OF THEIR ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS IS THEIR FIERCE ETHNOTRIBALISM ROOTED IN CENTURIES OF SELECTION FOR ETHNOTRIBALISTIC TRAITS, THUS, THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY INCAPABLE OF INTEGRATING INTO THE SOCIOCULTURE OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THEY LIVE.

>all new yorkers are jewish-irish-italian mutts

hasn't been that way in a long time.

the average new yorker is a wealthy, anglo yuppie.

YOU ARE A MORON.

AUSTRIA EMPIRE

Thats not how you spell new orleans

Ilyrians, Dacians, and Goths were regarded as separate ethnic groups and they were expelled from cities or lynched during the wars between the Empire and their homelands due to fears of disloyalty. British tribes revolted and were very culturally distinct from the rest of the Empire. Egyptians were considered exotic by Italians and had different religious and cultural practices from the rest of the Empire. Italians made fun of Greeks for not beating their wives. The different provinces had their own distinct costumes, cuisines, marital traditions, festivals, cults, etc.

Rome could not have maintained their empire without multiculturalism. People, especially martial peoples, don't take kindly to being conquered and told to abandon all of their ancestors' practices because some lispy Italian fags told them to.

Holy shit all of your posts are trash. Shut the fuck up, and learn how to turn off capslock for fuck's sake.

And what do you think "folkic ideals" are?. It's things like language, religion, etc. "National and folkic ideals" sounds like some bullshit you picked up from an EUIV ripoff. There is no such things as a "national and folkic ideals". What you mean is culture itself, which any proper historian, anthropologist, or any other person who knows a damn thing about culture, would tell is created from language, religion, etc.

I live in New Orleans.

It fucking sucks.

Some good examples have been mentioned already.

An example of a good current multicultural state wouldbe Belgium. A country with French and Dutch cultures, culminating in a unique Belgian culture.

Another would be, oddly enough, Serbia. Although everyone knows it for its awful atrocities in the Yugoslav wars, most of those were carried out by Serb militias in Croatia and Bosnia. In Serbia proper, there were and still are many Bosniaks, and in the north Vojvodina is a peaceful very multicultural state within Serbia, with many different groups present, especially Hungarians.

Finland is another, where ethnic Finns and Swedes and Saami have all gotten along fine for quite sometime.

Iran is a good example too, as although not doing super well overall it is a multicultural state with many different groups, the Iranians, Azeris, Arabs, andmany others in the country have little tension. The only exception is the Balouchi in the southeast, but they don't get along with any of the countries they are present in.

There are plenty of examples of multicultural states with little troubles because of being multicultural.

If Yugoslavia would have included Bulgaria and Albania as Tito wanted, until Stalin threw his manbaby fit, then I think Yugoslavia wouldhave lasted for so much longer. The Bulgarians, being just as big of a population as the Serbs, would have been a great counterbalance to the Greater Serbia rhetoric ideology that brought it down. Incorporating Albania in would have left friends for the Bosniaks, who the Croats turned on in the wars, and for the Kosovar Albanians, keeping them from being so easily oppressed by the Serbs, thus keeping them peacefully in the state.

What could have been.

No. Multiple cultures just leads to the ghetification of society.

Domestic culture was far, far less monolithic in the past. In ancient Greece or medieval England, you had extremely diverse dialectics, accents, vocabularies, customs, styles of dress, mores, etc.

*dialects

rome?
mongolian empire? it only collapsed because his kids got greedy

Only Americans attribute being "white" as a cultural trait

Not in the current meaning of the word.

If you'd ask if there was a "multicultural" society before our times and define society as the state then yes - plenty. However, there's a difference in multicultural society where the only actually multicultural element is aristocracy while majority of people lived in relatively monocultural societies is a little bit of stretching.

As a part of society - aristocracy was pretty much cosmopolitan by early modern era. Especially since the enlightenment.

And those societies were nowhere near as cohesive or as united as the early 20th century nation state.

The Mongolian Empire reached its zenith during the reign of Kublai, a cavalry heavy horde army isn't sustainable in a city based agricultural society, once the mongols settled down to ruling the places they conquered it wasn't long before they were exposed as a minority foreign occupier that needed to be removed

But seriously, people like you how try to say "(insert empire here) fell because of X" usually have no understanding of things like cultural factors, demographic and economic constraints

That's right, nationalism made them monolithic, just as globalism is gradually making global culture monolithic.

The Mong Empire was dead by the time of Kubilai.

This is why Kubilai's realm is known as the Yuan Dynasty, not the unified Mong Empire. Even though he was the de jure Great Khan of it.

I realized you're just a poser, I asked you for help earlier today and you simply decided to not respond that - I keep seeing your behaviour like this, when you don't like a question you simply don't respond.

But when It's about shitposting you do it everyday, how can you call yourself a christian it's a mystery..

and it's the second time I ask for help and you just don't respond back.

This is usual behavior for a tripfag

I haven't be on today until recently. I was at Divine Liturgy.

They're fucking horrible. They shitpost in EVERY possible thread about Nietzsche and get so much wrong it hurts, and never respond to criticism. They're worse than a shitposter because at least shitposters get bored and stop. This is closer to a serious pathology.

Rome was also known for crucifying people and throwing its degenerates off a rock. Don't mistake 'multiculturalism' as 'liberalism.' Rome at its most decadent was as politically incorrect as pol.

But you are right for the wrong reasons. Rome is an example

>Not in the current meaning of the word.

Exactly. Most aristocrats spoke French and identified with Paris over their own natives. But that doesn't mean, however, that they invited Achmed to govern them. The entire term 'multicultural' is just so fucking corrupted because of Liberals.

Belgium doesn't function properly though...

Lol, once all the niggers stop nigging.

Even the most ancient civilizations were multicultural. Sumerians had Akkadian people among them. So yeah

Your example is quiet interesting.
I wonder why it worked.
Communities not intermarrying and staying in their own isolated villages, some interesting cultural mechanic?

>Finland is another, where ethnic Finns and Swedes and Saami have all gotten along fine for quite sometime.

Triggered. First of all, the majority of Samis live in cities are thoroughly Finnish. The rest live in an area in Lapland that is pretty much autonomous, and they are given special privileges.

>Swedes

Who? The 200k migrants that moved from Sweden in the 20th century? No? Ohh, you mean Fennoswedes. I can understand the confusion, since the English use a term that panders to Fennoswede ethno-nationalist dreams but sadly it's a Voltaire tier term.

Fennoswedes are not Swedish nor Swedes but Finns who are registered at the magistrate as being native Finns who speak Swedish. Most of them are culturally thoroughly Finnish.

Some Fennoswedes who latched onto Freudentals moronic ideas got into their heads that trying to artificially divide these two people is a good idea, so Fennoswedes who see themselves as Swedish exist and actually cause quite a lot of discord.

Finland is one of the least multicultural countries, either you integrate into the culture or you will not live happily. Several of our refugees have started leaving to Sweden or central Europe despite our better welfare.

a single peoples*

cont.

Other minorities like Gypsies are tolerated, but they experience prejudice. The thing is, the cultural differences are not big enough to make a significant difference. But when we get to areas in Helsinki where immigrants from extremely foreign cultural backgrounds (muslims for example) make up a significant portion of the population we see violence in form of gangs and such.

Ancient civilizations also had slaves, do you count that as being multicultural too?

Except for Jews and Christians of course.

Rome

that's not true you moron, the Romans literally added the gods of the conquered people into their pantheon

it's like you would be praying to both jesus and allah as a western European

To some extent thats the definition of an empire, but often this means in practical terms that there are disparate ethnicities living apart from each other.

If you mean multiculti by various ethnics living in close/direct proximity to each other its rarer.

I can think of the Tang dynasty as a good example.

Singapore?

Yes. But then leftists ruined it.

>literally added the gods of the conquered people into their pantheon
That makes the conquered people easier to control while also making them accept their subjugation with a bit of pride

>leftists
you mean their own ambition to control serbia
that said, hardly compared to neighboring states in anything despite its size because it was multicultural. all industry was in its western lands too.

No, because groups of humans don't like to include people who they see as "too different".
Basic human nature, you guys.

Ermm... the Dacians?

From the sounds of things, you seem to think multiculturalism is a wide variety of ethnic restaurants in a nation where everyone speaks the same language.

Countries as monolingual as Switzerland are clearly multicultural.

The fact that you see no major differences between Western ethnic groups, languages or history is that you've been raised in a society where the things that make people different is their skin colour, and not their language or history.

Which would be one specific and infamous country...
[spoiler]the United States of America[/spoiler]

The Wops and Mc's just moved to Long Island. They're still basically New Yorkers.

Saami and Finns were essentially slaves in the Swedish empire. Finland itself is 96% Finns with very few Fennoswedes and Saami left around for good reason.

Ethiopia was pretty good before the Oromos got all uppity

If by "multicultural" you mean one dominant culture with many slaves from various other, inferior cultures, then yes.

NYC is a fucking shithole.

Dépends; if you mean "multicultural" as in "One dominant culture ruling over the others", then any empire will do.

If you mean it in the sense that each culture is equal onder the law, Switzerland is currently growing at a faster rate than all of it's neighbors, so it's a good example of a succesful multicultural society.

>People in empires can generally ignore each other and run themselves like they want to and their culture dictates.
False.

For one thing, there's intense intrusion by the metropole on the ruled cunts.

For another, most Empires act like cultural boundary solvents either by actually fostering it, or simply by the fact that all the ruled cunts are inside one border.

Of course, this excludes European Colonial Empires. Which have shitloads of barriers and öthering involved due to the rise of Nation-States, democracy, and racial thinking. Which is why they were short lived since both the ruler and the ruled got memed into such lines of thinking.

Take for example: everyone in the Chinese Empire was a subject. But in the Brit empire, you had subjects and citizens.

>Command+F
>No Kazakhstan

How do we contract pseud into 3 letters?

Every empire that ever had a golden age. So Rome, Imperial China, the Guptas, the Abbasids, the Ottomans, etc.

An empire by definition includes multiple nations, ethnicities, cultures, and religions.

You wrote so much and said nothing.

most of them didn't even speak latin as a first language

the real reason rome isn't the answer is because it didn't work

I didn't mistake multiculturalism for liberalism, my very first sentence mentions Romans expelling and lynching ethnic minorities. They practiced slavery on a massive scale, no sane person could claim that a modern liberal would be comfortable in the Roman Empire.

>it didn't work

All civilizations fall eventually, whether they are multicultural or monocultural.

The fact that Rome lasted as long as it did and so profoundly the cultures that came after it is testament to its success.

Also see

How would you say empires "didn't work?"
Rome, China, and others lasted for thousands of years. Meanwhile Nation States have only 200 years under their collective belts.

Hell, not all those "Nation States" are Nations even but Empires masquerading as Nation states. Like the Chinese, Russians, Indians, and Iran.

China 'sinicised' all the shitty tribal based minorities they conquered in their expansion Westward. The modern 'Han' ethnicity is a mix of the proto-Chinese and all those sinicised goat people

The Ottoman Empire was multicultural but the multicultural factor of it did not help it function whatsoever lmao

>Sinicized
And yet you have things like Chinese Muslims, Chinese Christians, Chinese oogabooga Southern Pagans, and so on and so forth.

Not to mention Steppe Subjects were ruled utilizing their own local systems. The Emperor of China being "Tengkhan" (Heavenly Khan) to them.

>The Ottoman Empire was multicultural but the multicultural factor of it did not help it function whatsoever lmao

Another complete retard.
You should really read some history sometime, it's a cool subject.

Start with the Ottoman millet system.

soviet union

just look at their leaders and politburo

inb4
> prospered
> worked

Malaysia is a very multi ethnic and multi religious society, seems to be working ok-ish