Name literally one successful civilization that was multicultural. And didn't fall to shit because of it

Canada of course. It's been our official policy to be multicultural for decades, and we do quite well. Much. Better than the racists in some parts of the US...

Hans, Manchus and Turkics. Wow such multiculturalism!

the problem isnt multuculturalism, the problem is multiculturalism with shitty cultures like muslims.

Hellenistic Alexadria was one third Greek, one third Egyptian, one third Jewish and it was awesome.
Jews were 1 million of the 8 million inhabitants of Egypt back then.

None, every single one has failed and will keep failing.

By this logic, Austria-Hungary Hungary, which had extremely few muslims should also have been stable, but it wasn't.

And Zhuang, Miao, Cantonese, Tibetan, Upper Burman, and others.

It's almost like this whole recent "haninaization" is a process that's been undertaken for literally millenia and to mixed results.

Are you seriously implying South Slavs have worthwhile cultures? Hell, they're probably even worse than turkroaches.

The US, the most multicultural country on the planet.

As an immigrant from a very non-diverse country, I still get culture shock in the US.

Under Tito they were pretty stable.

Okay, time for more examples, the Irish under Britain, the Basques under Spain, the Belgians under the Netherlands.

Spain

Persia

America. We didn't fall to shit when the chinese, the irish, the italians, the germans, ect came in droves.

Multicultural civilizations only work with cultures that are

>CIVILIZED

GO FIGURE

Switzerland

The Mongols also killed anyone that didn't play by their rules.

For all its problems, America more or less got it right. Every group that was considered not real americans when they came in, eventually found their place in society and made it work.

America's problems stem from a lot of things, but not particularly multiculturalism. Being a multicultural population really doesn't mean jack shit if you live in an oligarchy.

Persian Empire
USSR

> didn't fall to shit
All states fall eventually, it's the same as asking for "man with certain qualities who didn't die"

They all die

Wouldn't call Sinicization multiculturalism.

...

Even though 1800s Trumpers cried that we would.

>"because of it"

Empires and civilizations eventually fall, and almost never for a single reason. Empires fragmenting into their component nations when put under too much stress is a semi-modern concept.

And there were no revolts under Stalin. What the fuck is your point?

>Native
>American
>Party

That's not what OP asked. He asked for successful examples of multicultural civilizations.

The Ottoman Empire

Native American as we know the word today only came into usage in the 1960s, before that it was Indian or American Indian.

In this instance Native American is their byword for "REAL American"

Much better example would have been Ireland before the English arrived.

Gaels, Hibernonorse and Hibernonormans.

...

>these didn't fall

>these fell because multiculturalism
>how? What do you mean how?
>no I can say they fell because multiculturalism
>shut up you commie jew

39 posts in and OP is already on suicide watch. Well memed

Well, to be fair, at that point, Muslims had a fairly good reason for going nuts.

South of Khwarezmia they were collectively slaughtered for the fuck up of one Shah. Regardless of if they were the same ethnicity or even same denomination as Khwarezmids.

And sorry, but Chagatai (a few of the generals too, but Chagatai in particular) was a fucking asshole to them for literally no reason. Hell, Turkic Muslims constantly saved his families asses in their infancy. And remained extremely loyal even with the Yasa working like a motherfucker against them.

But this proves OP's point.

Nationalism. It fell because of nationalism.

Nationalism is why multiculturalism fails. And nationalists blame this on multiculturalism because, much like commies and most other modernist movements, they never hold themselves accountable for destroying the fabric of society based on their whims.

No, actually. The Ottoman Empire fell apart finally because it LACKED it's once strong multiculturalism.

Turks were traditionally a minority in the empire. After everything was pulled off, things went to shit and they started genociding everything to make a Turkish dominated state.

The caliph telling them to riot and to rebel caused all the slaughters of muslims after the initial conquest

Was this before or after they forbade them from their proscribed ritual animal slaughter and prayers under pain of death and the death of their families by collective guilt logic?

The Achaemenids didn't fall because they were multicultural, they fell because Alexander raped them.

Not that it matters, the reason "multiculturalism" killed several empires is because the subjects of most empires usually don't want to stay in those empires.

They didn't fall because of multiculturalism.

This.

Al-Andalus

the british empire

To be fair, the Achaemenids were in trouble for some time before Alexander came along and wrecked them. If someone like Xenophon can trample through their best armies, and march along the empire harried only by local tribesmen (not imperial forces) with less than a quarter of what Alexander had, they're a paper tiger.

Of course, multiculturalism wasn't really to blame for that either.

Daily reminder Nation-states are a recent phenomena and there are very few true one-culture/one-race nation states in the world.

The culture of Britain was homogeneous

The culture of the dominion colonies of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were an extensions of Britain itself and also homogeneous (Except South Africa, but then you also had apartheid)

The people living in other colonies were not considered British, the British had as much interaction with them as your average American has with the Africans and Asians that American corporations sell too. The British Empire was not a classical Empire, It was an Empire set up purely so that British corporations could do business in those areas. The only difference between 19th and 20th century Britain and 20th and 21st century United States is that Britain actually took the extra set to plant the flag in the soil and tell the natives they're now under British administration.

Also if you didn't notice, pretty much all ex colonies except the dominion colonies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and some other small Caribbean and Pacific nations have severed their ties with Britain. Funny how the most loyal colonies to Britain were the ones that were founded and settled by British and the ones that left were the ones that weren't British. I wonder why that is.

>The culture of Britain was homogeneous
Homogenously English speaking, Homogenously Welsh Speaking, or Homogenously Gaelic Speaking?

Homogenously Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian or Methodist?

Homogeneously British

We can split hairs over minor differences (Denomination of Christianity) or extremely small minorities that are statistically insignificant (Non-English speakers) all day if you want but when someone say homogeneous they don't literally mean 100% of people are 100% exactly the same, they mean >90% of people are near enough the same.

>The culture of Britain was homogeneous
>Cunt calling itself UNITED KINGDOMS
>Homogeneous.

Yes, prior to when the Kingdoms united the Island was definitely not homogeneous.

After 100 years of being together there was no functional difference between them

The Human Race.

Still going strong.

>Time of troubles.
>IRA
>The Scottish Referendum
Sure m8

>denomination of Christianity is a minor difference
Because the Marian persecutions was just friendly banter and the Williamite-Jacobite War in Ireland was just a heated argument, right?

>>Time of troubles.
>>IRA

I didn't know Ireland was part of Britain

>>The Scottish Referendum

And it failed. Scottish nationalism was dead until the referendum was called and It's going to be dead again in another 5 years.

>Because the Marian persecutions was just friendly banter

No, but we're talking about the British Empire, not things that happened prior to the British Empire.

>Williamite-Jacobite War in Ireland was just a heated argument, right?

I didn't know Ireland was part of Britain

>I didn't know Ireland was part of Britain
OK, then you're really not qualified to take part in the discussion.

I'm talking about British nationalism and you bring up fucking Ireland, what do you want to me say, of course Ireland and Britain aren't the same

Rome fell due to decadence and outside forces attacking them at their weakest.

Carthage was militarily defeated.

Mongolia as the Khans knew it fell from succession disputes, but survived for centuries as the imperial family of China.

The Ottomans were rotting on the inside for centuries thanks to being too big for its government to properly maintain, and WW1 was its breaking point.

None of these fell due to being multicultural.

But Ireland was part of the British Empire from the late 16th century all the way up until the modern Republic of Ireland established in 1937.

>The culture of Britain was homogeneous

>The culture of the dominion colonies of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were an extensions of Britain itself and also homogeneous (Except South Africa, but then you also had apartheid)

>The people living in other colonies were not considered British

>Not that it matters, the reason "multiculturalism" killed several empires is because the subjects of most empires usually don't want to stay in those empires.

Pretty much. It's real easy to say it's multiculturalism that killed an empire when you ignore that throughout most of history, groups that stir up shit in a nation didn't initially come there by choice.

Mostly just laughing my ass off at all these libtard cucks, actually.

>Rome fell due to outside forces attacking them at their weakest
Lol. They let in thousands of Barbarians. Just like what Europe is doing with refugees today.

>They let in thousands of Barbarians. Just like what Europe is doing with refugees today.

Except that wasn't what destroyed them. They were destroyed because their military was on a downward slide after fighting the Visigoths. Rome had a chance when they started letting the barbarians into the army to help fight the invading hordes (because shit, they needed all the soldiers they could get at that point) but then NOPE, Stilicho's successors fucked it all up and allowed Alaric what he needed to sack Rome. Rome barely lasted another 100 years after that.

Detroit is killin it. Also probably the largest multi-cultural place on earth. (Don't quote me on that)

And you think the far left looks retarded. I'm just having a drink waiting for you to call us cucks, hurry up mate I need a take a piss.

> t. /pol/

Why do you tards keep trying with these threads? You always get your arse kicked back to where you came from...

Pretty sure the most multicultural place on Earth would be some city in SCEA.

>SCEA
Fuck, whatever half of my brain which is in type of typing is retarded.

ASEA*

>it's another /leftypol/ and /pol/ have a fight episode

>The Ottomans were rotting on the inside for centuries thanks to being too big for its government to properly maintain, and WW1 was its breaking point.
Which was precisely due to all the major ethnic groups inside the empire revolting against Ottoman rule. The Turks were too late in their assimilation policy and all the different peoples and cultures had enough. You know what the Ottoman response to it was? Genocide.

read a book

not even a history one

any book will suffice for a start

> ottoman response
> genocide

Not him but off yourself you fucking cockroach

at which letter of
> ottoman empire
did you gave up?

Except for the longest time the Ottoman's STRENGTH was that it was a multi-ethnic empire that actually worked in practice and not just theory. The problem was as said

AH fell apart shortly after annexing Bosnia & Herzegovina. Coincidence?

>WWI
>Caused by Muslims.
K

>survived for centuries as the imperial family of China.

>one dominant culture
>multiculturalism

>one common shared identity
>multiculturalism

>melting pot
>multiculturalism

>Moving the goalposts

They fell, yes, but not because of multiculturalism.

Okay, it seems you have a different definition of multiculturalism from everyone else.

Could you please clearly define multiculturalism?

multiple distinctive equal cultures living together

>equal

Could you elaborate on how they must be "equal"?

that is "a spherical cow in a vacuum"-tier definition that allows to deny any and all historical examples because it doesn't conform your made-up rules of what multicultalism is

This

He has a /pol/ fantasy understanding of human interaction and culture.

Problem with multiculturalism is when you let other cultures to be shitty, instead trying to make them proper and productive part of state (by either spoiling them to much or abusing them to much).
Or state is weak itself by some other reasons.

>muslims
>culture
>not realizing that Islam is a religion

I hope you're not an American, because we are just so heavily involved in the middle east, our citizens cannot afford to be this misinformed about the huge variety of cultures, ethnic groups and religions in the region when considering our strategy there.

France

Everything before the 1800s; before nationalism almost every state was multicultural, its elite dominated by a internationalist elite and over a disparate group of various "cultures".

Ernest Gellner's account for Nations and Nationalism provides a good representation of pre-industrial societies, although he paints with a broad brush and is probably too oriented purely on the developments of industrialization. But the structures he describes for pre-nationalism states are largely correct.

It's pretty much a religion, culture and government type. Isis, Saudi Arabia iran Pakistan and Brunei follow it correctly

no culture =/= multiculture
just because you steal something from every culture, doesn't mean you have a culture

And culturally they're extremely different. Even Pakistan and Iran who are neighbours.