Can you name one multicultural society that flourished prior to 1900?
From what I can see, "diversity" is actually bad and creates civil unrest, or at the very least turmoil and apathy. Meanwhile the 5th columnists excite and promote take over of government and revolts.
>bonus points: prove eskimoes killed vikings.
Rome, the United States, etc.
All large empires are multicultural
Rome was destroyed because of multiculture. They put too much power in the hands of the foreign mercenaries.
Prove it. Aztecs and myans were multicultural? Japan? hmmmm
All large empires/ multicultural nations have one ethnicity or people on top
>rome
>USA
>austria-hungary
>british empire
>USSR
all had many different cultures in them, all had one ethnicity or group of people on top
that's not really multiculturalism
it's a retarded and divisive concept in the modern times though
Those were not multicultural societies.
Rome conquered and assimilated people into their culture. The U.S. was founded by pilgrims, puritans and migrants who believed in the Protestant work ethic.
Multiculturalism is when you have people with drastically different cultures and worldviews living in the same country. See Muslims in Europe. Nothing but disaster and conflict, it does not work.
>See Muslims in Europe. Nothing but disaster and conflict, it does not work.
Actually mein bro I got to stop you there. Consisting the numbers of people involved, millions of people, there is no conflict or disaster.
What little violence there is happens to be magnified for effect.
Even if you had a terror attack every single day you would still only have 365 per year.
And 364 out of millions is statistically irrelevant.
>This is your brain on leftism
Don't get side-tracked please. Prove to us that most empires were multicultural. You have not done this yet.
Muslims have a different vision and culture than the native Europeans have.
Muslims come to your country, and instead of assimilating like normal citizens, they don´t.
They want YOU to assimilate into THEIR culture. This is where the conflict is at.
Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, look at any of the urban cities and you will have entire Muslim neighborhoods. The native Europeans don´t feel safe and don´t recognize their own country anymore.
The whole `Eurabia´ and `invading Mudslimes´ meme did not come out of thin air. This is national and cultural suicide, in favor of an invading group.
Multiculturalism is a fantasy. People are inherently tribal and stick to their own kind.
"multicultural" =/= ruling over many cultures
Many of these had a culture or ethnic group
that viewed itself as superior and ruled over the others.
Modern "multiculturalism" is about all the cultures being equal within a society.
China
>asians consist of different races
you are stretching the truth a bit.
>Muslims come to your country, and instead of assimilating like normal citizens, they don´t.
Explain why muslims in western countries are much more liberal than those in the middle east then.
There is a difference between multicultural and multiracial and you got USA example for the last one anyway.
They aren't fully endorsed by sharia law and the government?
That's a stupid question.
But as the other user said, one race ruling over all the other races isn't really multiculture.
They might not be practicing Muslims, but they still hold dearly to their Islamic 3rd world culture and traditions.
They do not love their host countries, they act like occupiers and invaders. They want to Islamize and change your culture to theirs. They despise the native Europeans.
Compare that to the Irish, Anglo, German, Italian, Chinese and Cuban migrants that came to the U.S. to become hard workers, good citizens and provide for their family.
Assimilation or get the fuck out.
> real multiculturalism was never tried! XD
>USA pre-1900
>multicultural
You have failed to show how muslims being much more liberal in the west does not prove that they have assimilated to an extent. Unless you think they're all lying, but then if you think that you're unlikely to be convinced by any evidence.
Is that your proof / argument?
If I enslaved a bunch of africans, you call that multiculture?
Nobody was enslaved in China
> b-b-b-but one nation ruled over everyone!
Ruling class is always the minority, who cares.
>use phones and modern technology
>leech off welfare
>crank out babies every 9 months
>``dude were totally assimilated now lmao´´
Your point is noted and discarded, have a nice day.
wow...
Okay, dude, I'm not particularly pro-immigration and I freely admit that multicultural success stories are outnumbered by failures, but you are arguing like a jackass here.
People have named several examples, and you've either
1. Ignored them (Russian Empire)
2. Changed the goalposts to disqualify them (China doesn't count because it wasn't "multiracial" -- that wasn't your question now, was it? USA doesn't count because it wasn't *founded* as a multicultural society even though that's what it quite swiftly became)
3. Pulled straight-up bullshit out of your ass (although Romanization was a goal it's simply a fantasy to claim that they assimilated all their conquered peoples)
You've made it impossible to argue with you, not because you're right, but because you're not judging the examples against the criteria in the OP but against some pure imagined ideal in your head that of course has never actually existed. Anyone can play that game with anything they don't like, and sure it's satisfying and you can get people on your own side to cheer, but it proves nothing.
And again, I'm AGAINST multiculturalism.
That said, another historical example that (unlike the others) wasn't a huge empire -- although it's not a certainty because they kept no written records, Teotihuacan is generally thought to have been a multicultural city-state (like Singapore) and it was the most successful society in Precolumbian America.
I'm talking about surveys of political opinions here. While muslims in the west are more conservative than general society, they are signifiantly more liberal than their counterparts in the middle east.
Well then by your definition every society has been multicultural. I don't think I'm the one being intellectually dishonest here. We are talking modern open borders, mass migration multiculture here, which most certainly eliminated every empire / society it took place in.
Having multiple tribes and languages doesn't really do it for me. If I mix a bunch of irish and scottish together, that isn't multiculture since they are basically the same thing.
This.
>"multicultural" =/= ruling over many cultures
That's wrong. If you means something else but "multicultural" then go ahead and use another term. If it's egalitarian you're thinking about there's no reason to not use that word instead.
Never before or even after world seen such religious or cultural tolerance.
That does not change the fact that the vast majority of Muslims in the west refuse to assimilate and act like citizens of their host countries.
> open borders, mass migration
Basically every nomadic society?
Yes, when the vandals, barbarians and moors invaded rome and fucked it into oblivion, that was a multicultural success!
Please stop trolling.
>presented with proof that the majority of muslims assimilate
>NUH-UH THE VOCAL MINORITY IS DEFINITELY THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS BECAUSE I SAY SO
>the majority of muslims are honest hardworking people!
Lmao, fuck off senpai.
But that's not multiculturalism, that's outright ethnocultural invasion and warfare.
A better example for an open border and mass migration culture using said tactics to strengthen their hand rather than imploding would be various iterations of Mongol/steppe nomad hordes.
Moreover, the same deal was happening in pre-complex Amazonia; the Tupi on a constant search for the Land without Evil, the Arawakan cultural-linguistic expansions, riverine Ge networks, probably with an Arakwakan complex culture for a wee bit sometime before 1000 BCE.
> memes overs reals
is it what means to be alt right?
>presented with proof
you made a claim, but showed no proof
Every Muslim I work with is orders of magnitude more diligent, hard working, knowledgeable about domestic and international politics, and thankful to be here than his coddled unreflexive white upper middle class counterpart.
>Having multiple tribes and languages doesn't really do it for me. If I mix a bunch of irish and scottish together, that isn't multiculture since they are basically the same thing.
"Multiple tribes and languages" coexisting together in one state is literally what multiculturalism is. And the differences between the various peoples who existed together (and still do in many cases) in the Roman Empire, in the 19th-early 20th century USA, in the Russian Empire, in China, in Teotihuacan, in many Indian empires and kingdoms, were far greater than the differences between Irish and Scottish people -- whether we're talking about Irish & Scottish 200 years ago or today.
Part of the problem here is that you asked for examples of successful "multicultural societies", but instead you seem to actually WANT examples of societies that have prospered in the face of massive migrations and ensuing demographic shift. Those are two very different questions. You are not using the word multicultural precisely (or correctly).
Well every muslim I know is a backwards retard that smells like shit. Anecdotal evidence is great don't you think?
The modern definition of multiculture seems to imply massive migrations and demographic shifts, wouldn't you agree?
>Even if you had a terror attack every single day you would still only have 365 per year.
iirc france said they were stopping a terrorist attack daily
I've seen those surveys too. They're not really that convincing. Only die-hard idiots from /pol/ (unfortunately there's a lot of those) believe that Muslims in Europe aren't assimilating AT ALL, and if they seem to be claiming that it's largely hyperbole. Many of them still feel that Muslims are not assimilating ENOUGH.
t. Achmed Mohammed Al-Jammal
Stupid shitskin.
It isn't. You can be multicultural with closed borders a la soviets.
It's probably all the attacks.
Remember hardly a month goes by without some sort of Muslim on infidel public attack.
It's a credible problem.
Migration is not the same as seeking asylum, refugees are fleeing war zones.
policyexchange.org.uk
theguardian.com
Neither the Policy Exchange or Channel 4 are particuarly liberal (both are fairly centrist) and the Channel 4 study focused on poorer muslims. Compare these to surveys of eastern european and middle eastern muslims and the difference is vast.
So you agree then that what's taking place around the globe in essence is not multiculture. But something worse?
USSR was not multicultural.
Race does not equal multiculturalism, dumb ass. The color of your skin is irrelevant.
We are talking about CULTURE. The USSR had an atheistic communist culture, regardless of your background.
>you don't actually want to hurt me do you goy?
>no ofcourse not rabbi
No, i don't believe that accepting people feeling from warzones as something worse than people wanting to move to my country because of its economic sucess and culture, i believe that my country has made serious failures to provide for people feeling persecution and war, and we shouldn't turn people away due to the region they are escaping from.
>syrians are basically white
>all the people coming in on boats are black
hmmmmmm, which black countries are at war right now?
Many of those ````````refugees´´´´´´´´ have phones, watches, modern clothing and plenty of food.
When they reach Germany for that delicious gibsmedat welfare, they act like spoiled ungrateful pieces of shit.
If they were truly refugees, they would have been fine with stopping in Turkey or any other country not at war. Instead, they take a long track through Europe all the way to Germany and France specifically. Because welfare.
There are plenty of footage showing these poor, unfortunate refugees leaving trash on the roads and throwing bottles at cars on the highways. They also threaten. All the marks of an invasion and immigration.
Real refugees do not act like that.
Also, new year´s eve in Germany. Hundreds of girls were raped and harassed in Cologne by these poor, didnt-do-nothing-wrong refugees who recently arrived there.
Spare me the bullshit, bleeding-heart libtard.
I live in the real world, not fantasy imagination land.
>siberians
>slavs
>turkic
seems multy culty
Multiracial does not equal multicultural.
See: America
hmmm
Wow you really BTFO that fucking lefty cuck /pol/bros!
No. Singapore is one of the most-frequently touted examples of a successful multicultural society -- perhaps THE most frequent one -- and it was multicultural from the beginning (and, incidentally, started out plagued by ethnic tension and conflict that later stabilized). The US, of course, became a multicultural society because of mass immigration, because except for the natives EVERYONE in America is there because of mass immigration, but it remained multicultural for a long time after after the flood from Europe and Asia ceased (and before the flood from Latin America started). Russia is a very multicultural country and its demographics have been relatively stable for a very long time (barring the current declining population and a couple ethnic cleansings here and there). Ditto for the parts of modern China that are not dominated by Han Chinese, and above all for modern India. All of these are very frequently-cited examples of multicultural societies with (relatively) stable demographics, not cases of an indigenous population being swarmed by huge numbers of immigrants.
It is very obvious that your knowledge of multiculturalism comes almost entirely from /pol/ (and the kinds of sources that people cite on /pol/), but /pol/ doesn't have the last word on multiculturalism, and neither does its archenemy Angela Merkel.
And before you argue, if you reread my post you'll notice that I haven't said one word in multiculturalism's defense -- either the broader definition or the very specific one that you're using. We're purely talking terminology here. And if you're still inclined to argue, I have to wonder why you're clinging to an unusually specific word use that guarantees you'll be frequently misunderstood.
>america
>French
>British
>Dutch
>Spanish
seems multy culty
> communism is culture
>a city state consisting of 90% ethnic chinese is multicultural
hmmmmmmm, I guess you have a point there.
>Many of those ````````refugees´´´´´´´´ have phones, watches, modern clothing and plenty of food.
I'm going to point and laugh, really really hard, when some awful disaster grips America and this is what the rest of the world says of us when we try to flee after our kids begin to starve and/or get blown into a rain of organ meats.
I dont think you understand what the word "culture" means.
> which black countries are at war right now
all of them, lmao
>Singapore is one of the most-frequently touted examples of a successful multicultural society -- perhaps THE most frequent one
lol
the kingdom of hungary had austrians, saxons, svabians, ruthens, romanians, slovaks, serbs, croats, greeks, armenians (refugees), bolgars, cumans and jews
there was no civil unrest or apathy, it was a pretty good place for its age till the turks invaded
youtube.com
I'm going to laugh really hard when your daughter gets raped by Jamal.
The point is, syria isn't at fault for the migration crisis. That's a bold faced lie.
t. self-hating white-guilt lefty commie retard
IJS what's good for the goose; when it's the Amerilards in trouble, I PRAY the rest of the world rejects you to wallow in your own blood like you've rejected the rest of the world.
jokes on you, i am jamal
>well-fed, clean clothed and military-able men
>refugees
Liberals are so retarded.
every european needs to see this video.
Teotihuacan
kill yourself
> forced
> suicide
i am not watching something with such stupid title as this
hey guys
you hear that
it does not matter if people get crushed by a bus because we did it for the greater good aka communism
KYS
Multikulturalists BTFO
natives murder more people than all migrants combined
>Sweden will be a third world nation in 15 years
>being this fucking retarded
> wanting to be 1st world nation
>Mohammed is the most popular name in Britain
If you think that the USSR was merely multiracial and not multicultural then you know nothing about the USSR.
It had (still has) Slavs, Baltics, Turkics, Mongolics, Finnics, Germanics, and several minor groups in Siberia.
Those groups spoke literally hundreds of languages between them. They practiced Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Baptism, Judaism, Buddhism, and hundreds of small shamanistic religions in Siberia. All of these groups had significant cultural differences between them and lived very different lifestyles.
~75%, as the second post noted, a figure which also ignores the cultural divisions within the Chinese population. Linguistically the Chinese population is largely Mandarin-speaking because the government deliberately promoted the language over Hokkien, Cantonese etc for decades (here again you're using the words multicultural and multiethnic/multiracial interchangeably ... when it suits you). Religiously it's very diverse with (rough percentages) 30% of the population Buddhist, 20% Christian, 15% Muslim, 5% Hindu, 10% Taoist and 20% professing no religion.
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether you're buying it or not, though. I don't care whether you consider Singapore multicultural or not. I'm not touting it as a multicultural success story. I'm not giving you my own opinions, I'm reporting other people's opinions. The point is that (many) people hold it up as an example of multiculturalism. That's flatly true, whether you agree or disagree with them.
>Communism
>Religion
Pick one.
This is because Muslims have only one name and Anglos billions of them. Don't be retarded.
Natives are 95% in austria
Our police minister told us that 70% of people landing in jail are foringers and most of them are muslims/turks and that we could get rid of most prisons if these countries would take their felons back.
There is a reason why every country that gets muslims becomes a police state with cams and armored soldiers ob the streets
stop living in loopy land
Italians were the only people allowed to be citizens in the Roman empire up until the Antonine decree of 212 AD. Roman legions were only recruited from Italians. The USA only accepted immigrants from white European countries until the Immigration Act of 1965.
I pulled that statistic out of my head, and buddy confirmed that I was pretty on par with the actual statistic.
> police state with cams and armored soldiers ob the streets
nothing bad with high security
>Aztecs and myans were multicultural?
Yes
>Japan?
Not an empire
Nah nothing is bad about it
A white country just doesn't need it
If you want a multicultural paradise get ready to have soldiers on the streets and trucks on the sidewalk
Jew gotta be kidding me.
Japan is last empire existed today user...
Am I getting trolled right now? Starting to suspect I am.
The USSR's policy towards religion varied wildly depending on the time period (and they didn't treat all religions equally either) but even in the periods when they actively tried to wipe out religion in their country they didn't succeed. Even if they had, it would've taken longer than a single generation for centuries' worth of cultural differences between Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims and Jews to be equalized.
>Libtards holding "Welcome Refugees!" signs
Thanks cultural Marxism. Europe is doomed.
...