Has multiculturalism ever worked for any society in human history to the point where it was seen as a net positive over...

Actually it's not even a consumer culture, it's a metaindustrial-complex, the consumers are just bees bringing pollen to the hive

If the ethnic tensions that went down in the US went down in contemporary Europe you'd think there was a race war

Isn't the USA multicultural even if you exclude the non-whites? Isn't why it is the "united states"? Each state has its own thing. At least that's the impression I get from reading about your country's history.

No, at least not in a democracy.

All other multicultural states(which all failed btw) were basically always run and maintained through either brute force, or just mere oppression of whoever was the dominant group.

I gave this answer in another thread about multiculturalism
>Multiculturalism can and has worked in America, but only works effectively and at it's best when people but America and being American foremost before ethnic background and where you came from. It's ok to love your culture but don't nutride it so hard at the expense of being American. Also keeping a sense of your culture and remembering where you can from is important though. You shouldn't want to conform so badly that you actively forget or deride things that make where you come from a great place. Bring the best of where you come from to America and what makes you American. On the flipside, people need to stop with all the actual racism/racialism bullshit and stop complaining about shit like racemixing. Every one on earth, including the posters in this thread have some level of different race/ethnicity to one degree or another and so all our ancestors did as well.

Austria was nice and broke up only after terrible military loss.

this

>Austria was nice
kek
no it was a completely disfunctional and oppressive country

Would you be fine with native populations being outbred by immigrants? For instance if Japan started a new immigration policy tomorrow to try and solve some of their problems would you not have any problem if the country were to be 40% native Japanese in 100 years?

It requires communities that are economically interconnected with other communities while integrating themselves into wider civic institutions. When you deprive someone their community, cut them off from the economy, and deny them privileges of a legal system that incorporates them into both their community and the government, things will break down.

the Qing dynasty was a pretty successful multiethnic and multicultural state, the Chinese and Manchurian parts were ruled directly by the emperor but the Mongol, Muslim, and Tibetan parts had their own special homerule. It worked quite well for them.

Why wouldn't he be? That doesn't conflict with anything he said and he's talking about America, a place where the native population is the minority.

Every society ever before nationalism was invented in the 19th century?

I would say it's more due to the concept of "the other." When you have a group of British, Germans, Spaniards, and French all attempting to live together in the US, they create natural boundaries between each other based on differences. They see each group as "the other," something different than themselves.

When other cultures/ethnicities started to crop up with even bigger differences, however, the groups that once saw differences within themselves found common ground and banded together against another population even more divorced from their customs. They still saw each other European group as a separate entity, but their shared cultural ties became something that pulled them together against something far more different than themselves. This has happened throughout history in various forms and fashions; be it ethnic tribes against others, religious groups against others, nations against other nations, and now, cultures against other cultures. Humans naturally seek to place aspects of themselves in others, and unite with those who share more aspects than those who do not. Race, culture, religion, nationality, or even moral and ethical beliefs are some of the most common criteria used to divide us, and as things with a bigger effect on our lives surface, we find old groups of the other to be allies where they were previously enemies.

The concept of "the other" is so ingrained in humanity that it cannot be overcome through any method; we will always see ourselves as part of a particular group, and while what membership we hold may change over time, the fact that we're a part of something does not. The only solution anyone has found to this is the creation of an enemy, an other so distasteful to a group of people that it forces them to unite to prevent the spread and triumph of this "other."

You seem to have a strange concept of "multiculturalism" and "society"

In fact it worked so well it was only the cause of civil wars that killed only hundreds of millions of people

>b) the absolutely retarded idea of allowing competing laws and institutions

Don't forget historiographies, that's an aspect of multiculturalism that often gets overlooked.

>Let's allow hostile foreigners to teach their antagonist version of history to our children, what could go wrong?

This, multicultural societies have never failed from being multicultural.
The problem is group identity and system dynamics, reactionary feedback loops and whatnot.
Multicultures fail because the members of the cultures are not individualists and/or equalitarians.
I'd say everything about a multicultural society is a positive, higher adaptive capacity, increased resilience, and the heterogeneous environment produces smarter people with a broader worldview.
All the negatives typically attributed to multiculturalism arise from cognitive deficits in the reductive human mind and are not intrinsic to multiculturalism.

Every country ever has been multiculti faggot.
The roman empire had hundreds of ethnicities and lasted for many centuries.
France had like a dozen languages until a XIX century policy tried to erradicate them. Russia has dozens of ethnicities as well. China...

You get the point?

Never. The US is a fucking shithole.

Relative isolation allowed those countries to still function, as 's theory puts it. The groups are part of a whole, but still distinct due to geographical distance.

For example, if I were a Baptist living in the southern US, I probably wouldn't care there's a Mosque setting up shop in New York because it doesn't really affect me (Well, until a large enough number of Mosques start setting up and national policy becomes influenced by growing numbers of Islamic peoples, because that does affect me.). If that same Mosque was being built in the back yard of my little town and a group of Muslims were moving in and affecting the local culture, I would be very upset because of the destruction of a place where I once felt belonging.

Multiculturalism only really works in large, heterogeneous urban centers because the majority of people living there expect to see a large variation of cultures and people. In your smaller towns and rural areas, people expect nice, stable, and orderly ways of life, and disruptions to that natural order of things cause strife. You cannot reconcile the differences between those two groups, because even if you were to eradicate one, the next generation would just spring forth new people with their own opinions on the matter.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The Romans were incredibly xenophobic. Ethnic conflict has plagued Russia for centuries. Your examples are shit.

Pretty much these.

Also, unless they're apart of an isolationist tribe, all societies are multicultural to varying degrees.

>Has multiculturalism ever worked for any society in human history to the point where it was seen as a net positive over simply being a homogeneous society?
it allows larger states to exist
if every state could only function well if there was one culture in it the world map would look a lot different

That only justifies it as a necessary evil for most countries and not something you should actively strive for if given the chance

the question was if its a net positive, not if it should be actively striven for
fag

as someone who lives in a small town, what you describe is a fantasy. Towns aren't any more stable than cities regardless if they're multicultural or not

>heterogeneous environment produces smarter people with a broader worldview.
This is why urbanites are ~typically~ more worldly and open minded than country folk, still just as prone to reductivity and failing into reactivist traps as anyone else though.
Example:
>Liberals initiate change

>conservatives react to change

>liberals react to conservative reaction
>more liberals join the game
>liberal identity is reinforced
>liberals become more liberal

>conservatives react to liberal reaction
>more conservatives join the game
>conservative idenity reinforced
>conservatives become more conservative

>liberals react to conservative reaction
>.....

>ad infinitum, until it breaks
>breaks into an authoritarian, civil war, genocide

I call this a reactionary trap and it is my theory that this is how all political polarization takes place

Whats scary is people and their entities have been manipulating this behavior for profit for a long time, "divide and conquer". (((Bannon))) (((koch))) ((($)))
>Exxon pays science denier to come on to the media and spread disinformation
>climate denial now part of the conservative idenity
>club for growth and chamber of commerce force fuck "economic growth" down everyone's throat
>Americans now think the economy could, and should grow indefinitely

>trump tweets a bunch of bullshit about Mexico and Muslims
>everyone is too busy fighting eachother to realize that all of our natural and social capital is being sold off to ALEC, let alone coherently organize against it- house divided.

Same kinda shit happened during the civil war, and red scare for example.

Individualism is the only way out.

They have their own divisions, but they still see other members of their town as infinitely more the same than a foreign visitor.

I can't really speak for every small town in the US, but at least near the Texas coast it's that way. Takes almost an entire generation for new people to actually achieve equal social footing to those who had been there for a while, and people too far from the dominate culture never will.

Multiculturalism as practiced nowadays is not actually multicultural. It just divides society in two monolithic blocs, "whitey", composed of people with mostly European ancestry, and "people of colour", composed of everyone else.

The objective of multiculturalism is to create a new revolutionary class, the "people of colour", who will be convinced to enact the communist revolution by intellectual discourse about oppression and white supremacy. The revolutionary intelligentsia has been looking for a new revolutionary class ever since the working classes abandoned communism in the 1960s, and they have found it in everyone who isn't white.

No; however multiculturalism is not multiethnic.
You can have a nation with various races, but they must adapt to the culture.

You mean like ww2?

>No; however multiculturalism is not multiethnic.
and multiethnic is not multiracial
learn what words mean

Basically this. Multiculturalism may work if it's recognized that certain cultures are more advanced/superior than others, and are held by different standards. But it can disastrous if mixed with cultural relativity, the belief that all cultures are equal, just different.

Theres a difference between a melting pot and a multicultural society. In a melting pot, immigrants assimilate to the greater culture, while also adding to it. America is a melting pot. The most obvious examples are things like chinese and italian food, and st. Patricks day.

Multi cultural societies have, well, multiple cultures living side by side. Like gazelles and zebras. There have been fewer examples of this. The ancient persians were famous for being multi cultural. You could argue that Russia is somewhat multicultural as the steppe peoples that live in Siberia are more asiatic than european.

Not to get political, but i feel like we should all really understand this difference in light of whats going on in europe. Imagine how great it would be if muslims coming into germany assimilated, but then little things about their culture would add to the german culture. It might even make them more conservative! Which god knows europe needs.

Since when multicultural societies cannot be xenophobic?
Romans had no problem absorbing new peoples, customs and even religions in their empire.

I don't really mean that specifically, from your previous post, it seems like you thought small towns were better than cities. Small towns might be slightly less dangerous to live in than cities, but they have a lot of their own problems. The small town Leave It To Beaver type of town is a stereotype.

>conservatives are dumb dumbs and liberals are smart!

thanks for your contribution. really made me think

Oh, I certainly agree with that. The challenges of every location are unique, but not necessarily lesser or greater, just different.

The tolerance of those problems over others however is what influences what population lives where. Without listing every aspect of life, it's why we have "city people" and "country people." Both value different things and are willing to put up with the shortcomings of their location because they think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

>couldn't even read his post
he didn't say conservatives were dumb, but you certainly proved it by being illiterate

But I'm a classical liberal. So I actually disproved it.

jokes on you, i'm actually a conservative, so by blindly assuming you were a conservative i proved myself and therefore all conservatives to be dumb

Achaeminids?

>blended
exactly
not coexisted

imagine if the black south rose up and took over america
that's the story of the median and achaemenid empires in a sense although the difference between medians and persians isnt as great

>imagine if the black south rose up and took over america
In what way?
I'm thinking multiple scenarios for such an idea.
t. eastern euro

>red scare
>implying red subversion is not a valid concern
Opinion discarded.

>Multiculturalism may work if it's recognized that certain cultures are more advanced/superior than others, and are held by different standards.

Not really. no one wants to live in a society that shits on them or gets an aneurysm/triggered if they do something out of the norm.

>Isn't the USA multicultural even if you exclude the non-whites?

Damn right you are. Politics, religion, social structure, family structure, lore, songs, languages, traditions.

>Not really. no one wants to live in a society that shits on them
Swedes seem pretty happy with such an arrangement.

When have people ever gotten along?

what civil wars? After that system was established in the 1750s there wasn't any major internal turmoil until the Taiping rebellion a century later.

>civil wars that had nothing to do with race

Qing dynasty werent rulers of China such as modern Secretars of UN arent leaders of Earth. Centralisation started about 1930, was bloody and brang to mono-ethnical dictatorship of PRC.

...

>Qing dynasty werent rulers of china
they certainly seem to be to me, what makes you say this

>implying that fear didn't become blown way out of proportion because of people's reactive tendencies
>implying demagouges did not play on this to obtain power
Opinion is stupid

But the entire post was about how both liberal and conservative group identities are for idiots

>it's another conflating multiculture with multiculturalism episode

>i am against multiculturalism, but ahmed, don't you dare call yourself european, you look slightly different