Multicultural society

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

Mongols were pretty tolerant of most cultures and religions as long as they didn't resist being ruled.

Only lasted like 150 years or something though.

>USSR fell though because countries wanted to be independant.
That was only the Baltic case. In the Borderlands and the White Rus most people were loyal to Russia.

>Romans

They were multi-ethnic but not multi-cultural, though. They didn't elevate other cultures to the same level or above native Roman culture.

Greek culture was fetishized to some point by aristocrats but the hoi polloi didn't.

I thought those terms are nowadays interchangable

Most empires that survived beyond a few decades are integrationist-monocultural and multiethnic.

This

They intensively Romanized important economic centers. Sure it was largely an affair of governors, but they did try to spread their cultural influence at least along the Mediterranean.

>USA is fairly successful
Due to white people, remove whites and America turns into Africrap overnight.

A better question would be "what empires/cultures are/were highly successful and relevant and fully monoculutural and monoethnic?"

No, North Korea is not successful. There's insane starvation there.

>There's insane starvation there.
It's not 1994 any more

I'd suggest the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
It lasted for what, 200 years and was fairly successful.

None because a culture of many cultures isn't a culture.

The Roman empire was always Roman.

It's about destroying the nation state. European culture is "universal" only if the Europe is no longer... wait for it... European.

White people are multicultural on themselves.

>France
>Japan
>Sweden at it's height
>2nd Reich
>Spain

>Spain
>France
They both just eventually blended their separate cultures into one rather than having one culture.

Even if that were true what does it have to do with anything?

>monocultural empire
impossible

>Remove 60% of the population and society will collapse
Did you learn nothing from the Bubonic Plague?

They did spread their culture but Roman culture was supreme, it's a stretch to call Roman society multicultural considering it expanded by conquest, subjugating other people to their own rules and customs.

I feel like we actually agree with each other and are just saying different aspects of the same thing, so I'll defer to you here.

Switzerland is multicultural and successful. They are lasting since 1815 in their current form.

Romans where literally the Nazis of the ancient world.

>implying society collapsed from the Black Plague
bruh

Even the emperors came from all parts of the Empire. There was even an arab emperor. There was no hoarding of political power in the hands of Latins. The multicultural nature of the Roman Empire can also be attested from the fact that Latin language didn't survive after the collapse of the empire (save for the Catholic church, thats conserves a Latin very different from the one the masses spoke), but evolved into new languages, whereas Greek survived.

>Even the emperors came from all parts of the Empire. There was even an arab emperor.

Not quite, most Emperors were proper Romans from the Roman nobility, a few a them were provincials or of equestrians rank.

North Africa wasn't Arabic in the pre-Islamic conquest days. Emperors like Septimius Severus were the exception to the rule, he would never had a shot at rising in the Roman system if it hadn't been decimated by the plague first.

I'm sure Romans didn't have quite the same understanding of ethnicity as we do but they weren't a multikulti utopia.

> Latin language didn't survive after the collapse of the empire

Or maybe Romans eradicated other cultures but spared the Greek one because they found it quaint.

Your claim of a successful multicultural nation.

There was a legit Arab emperor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab

>Or maybe Romans eradicated other cultures but spared the Greek one because they found it quaint.
Roman language (Latin) was eradicated itself

stormweenie detected

You can't use multicultural and successful in the same sentence

even if that were true (and its not) how does it change the fact that the USA is a successful multicultural nation

The thing is, the US is only successful because of it's Western, white culture. It's not really multicultural because only the white culture is responsible for its successes. A true multicultural success would be one in which all it's cultures contributed a similar amount. Otherwise it's more like if the New England Patriots had a downs kid on the team but still managed to win the Superbowl. If the downs kid didn't help at all, and in fact was a detriment to the team, can you actually say he won the Superbowl?

now that's a goalpost move if I ever saw one
>its not multicultural because it doesn't fit my own personal definition of multicultural that is different from the standard definition, here's an ill fitting analogy

...

Singapore
>how
Hybrid of Fascism and Republicanism.

>implying that western country is the only country with multiracial population

Singapore

India?
It sure seemed like it in Kim....

>Race=Culture
WEW LAD

Ancient Egypt and ancient Rome off the top of my head.

>Same with Yugoslavia when Tito couldnt control it with a iron fist anymore.
Well it's kind of hard to rule a country when you're 11 years dead... Tito died in 1980 and Yugoslavian Wars started in 1991, btw.

>you can't have multiculturalism while preserving your own traditions
Kek

>They didn't elevate other cultures to the same level

Except they did, just only with 'civilized' cultures like the Etruscans, later Egypt and Greece. Barbarians got the slave pen.

>The root of ethno nationalism and sectarianism is mostly economics.
Not true at all, it's peoples inherent tribalism combined with their desire for self determination. Purely economically the empires in 1914 were multi-ethnic multi-faith (though not multi-cultural) globalist regimes so purely economically there wasn't anything inherently wrong with them for any people.

But Europeans felt an overwhelmingly powerful desire to form their own ethnic nation states nonetheless. My theory is that it goes back to the very beginning of Europe when various peoples lived in tribal groups with their own kind, speaking their own language or their own dialect of the common language and having their own customs and beliefs - like Saxons or Bohemians or Lombards.

>hat empires/cultures are/were highly successful and relevant and fully monoculutura
Practically every one?

>and monoethnic

That's just arbitrary limit. In order for an empire to be monoethnic it would have to be pretty shit empire that never conquered anything. Even meme empires like Bulgarian or Serbian >empires were multi-ethnic.

The Ottoman Empire

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab
If you read your own article it says he was born in Roman Syria. Syria during Roman times, Syria during Christian Roman times and Syria after the Arab conquests are three completely different states.

No. Pretty much as soon as the Romans got their hands on things actually worth a damn, they incorporated the native elite. They was a key thing to Rome's success and why it fell apart eventually: For a while, it was way better for the local elite of the provinces to be Roman subjects than it was to be independent.

>hurr rome died cuz of da foedaratttiii

When will this meme die?

It worked the other way around as well. Elites were heavily Romanized and integrated into Roman culture and with them they drew all the major urban centers in a newly conquered province into Roman culture. Only the countryside remained culturally native and even then, even Britons, pretty much the most remote tribe of the empire, were Romanized.

Romans incorporated some elements of the conquered culture into their own civilization but they absolutely Romanized the crap out of the people they conquered.

Has there been any sucessfull civilization/society?
If so how long did they last??

America Americanizes the crap out of the people they conquer too.

If Rome isn't multicultural than America and no other nation on earth can ever be.

>retard edits a Zen Pencils to make some mispelled screed against something he doesn't understand
Really made me think

China, Rome, Europe, Persia

>If Rome isn't multicultural than America and no other nation on earth can ever be.
nice fallacy there, on multiple levels too. Rome was borderline multicultural - they allowed other cultures to exist in their native communities and they absorbed some aspects of the conquered cultures they saw as beneficial but they clearly presented Roman culture as the most superior and they Romanized the crap out of conquered people, through a combination of soft power (it's better to be in Rome than out of it, it's better to do as Romans do than not) and hard power (military conquest).

>America Americanizes the crap out of the people they conquer too.

Well, yes, that's the point. Though the difference between America and Rome is that America directly conquers far far fewer people than Rome did. No, the meme map of American bases doesn't actually equal conquest and definitely not the Roman style conquest.

Ok, let's stop multiculturalism.
What happens with minorities who've lived in your country for generations?

They adopt 90% of your culture and 100% of the important bits and there's 0 social tensions left over after that.

As a real world example: there are, actually, Muslims in Poland, the basically native Tatars that came in like the 12th century and never left are still Muslim but they're literally indistinguishable from the Polish population except for few private matters.

That's much healthier and saner and stable in the long term then the forcing differences and safe spaces and tokenism that's currently popular in the west.

A country without a good coherent culture will ultimately become irreparably divided

I'm worried that is what is happening with the United States, there are a portion who are still holding onto Americanism while there are others who want to identify more by their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Yep. Or in a word - assimilation.

Malaysia
>everyone speaks their own language

Singapore
>lets make everyone fail their own language, threw in some random phrase from all these languages into english and call it "multi"-culturalism

Austria-Hungary

Brazil until the mid-80s to 90s or so. It had its problems, but these weren't from the variety of races or ethnicities in its territory, and social cohesion was actually pretty okay mostly because of how religion tied everyone together. We had some writers who were outrageously racist here and there, but actual racial tensions were very, very low.

Then the following happened:

>drug trade began to grow
>combined with politicians saying police shouldn't raid slums
>resulting in favelas becoming essentially parallel powers ruled by druglords
>leftist subversives started promoting identity politics imported directly from the US
>"oppressor whitey" narrative began to take hold despite most of the white-identified population actually having a lot of black ancestors
>push for quotas for blacks in universities and civil services stirring tensions that never existed before

Basically we were hit with splash damage from the attempts at subverting the US.

What underpins culture user?

Tradition, counter-tradition, forms of education, religion, art, specialization prominence, and, yes, race as well as many other components. Race is hardly the sole factor that determines culture.

If race is more important you ought to call it multiracialism and not multiculturalism, and fight that instead.

Most people on this board do actually need a proper lesson in ideological subversion. It astounds me how many people will write this off as "le tin foil" when even the smallest digging around in the modern history of academic institutions shows intense infiltration of western, and abroad, universities.

This pic is missing the tens of millions slaughtered in nationalist conflicts and genocides

>Race is hardly the sole factor
Just because you say that, doesn't make it true. The observable reality is that race has a huge impact in steering a society.
>call is multiracialism
I wish I could user... I wish I could...

>start with saying drugs fucked everything up
>end with saying sjws demanding poor dumb niggers get into university fucked everything up

I didn't say it didn't have an impact, dude, I just said it was far from the sole contributor. That is also painfully observable.

>Nationalism caused wars
Historical revisionism of the worst kind. Expansionist and militarism caused wars.
Having pride in your nation is what spurred people on to defending said clay against expansionist regimes.

>I wish I could user... I wish I could...
>...
You can, on Veeky Forums.

You can be against multiculturalism and not against multiracialism.

If you were in the thread that got killed, you ought to suspect why.

>Roman had a upper class mostly made of native romans though

Not even the Romans believe they were native to Rome. Have you read the Anead?

No. You said "Race is hardly a sole factor"
That is what's painfully observable user lol
If you're reviewing culture against the same ethnicities then the intricacies of art, architecture, music etc come in to play.
The wide variance in success between Asian societies and African ones almost exclusively reside in race.

>Europe
>China
>singular societies/civilizations

>almost exclusively reside in race.
False.

It resides in different frequencies of positive IQ alleles. And geography, environment etc.

Incredible how bad things can come from more than one cause, isn't it. Baffles the mind.

>ought to suspect why
lol we all know why
It's because everyone values the concept of racism. Unfortunately for me, I reject it like an atheist rejects the notion of god.
Hopefully Current Year can continue to break down pc culture.

Why are East Asians so fucking smart?

High frequency of good IQ genes.
Or as /pol/ would put it - "superior genetics"

>France
>2nd Reich
>Spain
None of these were monocultural, not even remotely. The first one did a pretty good job of integrating different cultural groups into a common civic nationality, the other two not so much.

>implying Rome wasn't founded by rape babies produced by women they stole from neighboring cities

rome was bladda from the beginning

I'm not even mad at being proved wrong.
Where does the information from this picture come from?

Primary source is a few studies conducted in this decade.
GWAS and other techniques. Often thousands of people in a sample. Basically searching for correlations with IQ, educational achievement etc.

Here's a secondary source.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-related-genes/

Ignore what the author calculates there. It's too simplistic to make sense. You can't calculate frequency of smartness from the frequencies of the alleles in the graph, unless you know if the inheritance of the genes is completely independent from one another, which it most likely isn't. He has however collected links to the studies.

Currently, it seems that what makes any Asian individual smart might be the same as what makes a white person smart. Or a black. Which complicates things.

Thanks for this.

There's a difference between multiethnic and multicultural. A civilization doesn't start out multicultural, it only gets that way after it becomes a prosperous and decadent empire. We can see it in modern times, but best in ancient Rome. While the Roman empire was a multiethnic society, it was a monocultural society in that Italians had higher status than everyone else in the empire. Only Italians were allowed to be citizens. This was when culture was still tied to ethnicity, I'm half remembering a good quote about this that went something like "In Scipio's day, Roman meant a people; in Trajan's day, Roman meant a population". We all know about the foederati meme but I don't think it's a cause of Rome's decline rather than a symptom. Under the Antonine decree of 212 (notably issued by Caracalla, the second African Caesar), all peregrini, or non-Italians were granted citizenship. Rome had lost all demographic coherence by that time.

are you talking about multicultural or multi-ethnic?

former is a meme since even if you introduce other cultures they will just merge into one indistinguishable blob. Take Rome for instance. They took from the cultures of North Africa, Egypt, Greece, their Italian neighbors, Iberia, and Gaul, but the result will always be Roman same with America and it's various cultures.

multi-ethnic is an inevitable bi-product of globalism and imperialism

XIV LXXXVIII

There is obviously nothing wrong with "multiculturalism" as intended, different ethnic or cultural groups living together under the same jurisdiction. They are the rule, not the exception, in recorded history. The exception are the homogenous nation-states created in Europe (thanks to massive population transfers and mass killings) after World War II.

My criticism of "multiculturalism" as it actually exists in the Western world right now is that it's not actually very multicultural. It actually erases cultures, creating just a single dychotomy between "Whitey" and "Peoples of Colour", where the first are oppressors and the later are the oppressed. It's a Marxist scheme for revolutionaries to substitute their dear old proletariat who didn't want violent revolution anymore.

>The root of ethno nationalism and sectarianism is mostly economics.

>this is what redditors actually believe

Empires like Persia and Rome were indeed multicultural but they recognized that the other cultures were not to be placed above the core culture.

The US was a multicultural society made up of EUROPEAN cultures. Now that it's letting others in it's failing. Look at the most multi-ethnic places: Detroit, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Florida... Would you call those places successful? They're disaster zones that require heavy taxation of the white middle class to take care of the lower class races.
>B-but companies should pay them more so taxpayers don't have to!
Corporations WANT more cheap labor, they're the ones shilling for third world immigration. They don't have to foot the bill, they'll just lobby and shill for Democrats more and your dumb ass will happily pay the rest of their salaries.

The root of ethno nationalism most certainly coincided with economic issues in Yugoslavia and USSR at least.