Multiculturism

has multiculturism been historically good or bad throughout society when it appeared?

I mean, they say homogenous societies are happier, but the culture around me is homogenous and I'm not really happy at all.

Good, see Ancient Egypt
Bad, see modern India

Although Egypt was more multiracialism and not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism does not work.

Multiculturalism worked great until nationalism became a thing. After that point, every multicultural state has become a shitfest. Except the US which has its own "American" identity that prevents nationalism from tearing it apart.

Multiculturalism works when people take the best from a culture. Multiculturalism fails when people pander to minorities.

Difference is the source of conflict, but it's also the source of growth.

Change is painful. To change is to die a little. To not change is to stagnate.

I live in a homogenous area. The only religion is protestanism, the majority of jobs are fast food and retail, and the culture is kind of depressing and you see things like obesity a lot. Is that better than New York City or London? I haven't been in those cities.

multikulti sucks shit, by definition.

People don't know the difference between multiculturalism, aka cultural pluralism, actually fostering different cultures within the same nation, and the concept of adopting the cultures to eachother to form a new one.

multiculturalism that is split up by conservative thinking within the individual cultures is a negative thing. but when it spreads over to culturally upheld morals to the point that people disagree with the cluntries laws it becomes a shitfest.

i have refugees in my neighborhood, but only those of the younger/more liberal generations are those we are at good terms with

if you hate poor white people then move somewhere where there are no poor white people, not sure what this has to do with multiculturalism

that costs money and you can't get money where i live

There is a sweet spot. Id say like 90% homogenous with 10% minorities is good.

To even discuss the contemporary issue as "multiculturalism" is farsical. Multiculturalism is an euphemism for the real thing which is mass immigration. Even Louis XIV's France, Austria etc were multicultural to some extent. This is not what we're talking about. We're talking about replacement level immigration of low skilled labor for the profit of big capital and to serve as electoral basis for leftists parties. And this has never been done before and, and since it's in direct conflict with the native population and is ought to cause conflict. So stop with this multiculturalism bullshit.

>10% minorities is good.
How is having 10% gypsies,niggers and sand niggers better than just be a homogeneous country? I don't think this works like a math equation.

You hate poverty not living in a homogenous society. If you lived in a ghetto in Detroit you would despise niggers and multiculturalism

Cont.

To even concede discussing the issue as if this were about "multiculturalism" already poisons the well against you, because who would be against culture right? Only bigots, rednecks, etc. would be against more culture and more food. But no, this not what we're talking about. I'm not against multiculturalism and extremely limited immigration of skilled migrants and real refugees, I'm against mass immigration and fake refugees and rent-seeking economic migrants.

10% minorities, if they ghetto, is suddenly 25% or 30% of a city population.
So no, its far to high if they do that.

Welfare also means they will be able to do the same move in, without the goodwill, creating economy pressure for rest of society to flee the area.

>Multiculturalism worked great until nationalism became a thing.

Nationalism is just tribalism on a larger scale. With tribalism comes culture.

Where did you associate those factors with poverty?

>has multiculturism been historically good or bad throughout society when it appeared?
I'd say mostly bad. Trying to rule two different peoples with the same set of laws is bound to benefit one group over the other.
This can only result in violence: quell rebellion, allow rebellion or the third way: finding another scapegoat. I fail to see how any of those solutions are better than having a homogenous societies.

>I mean, they say homogenous societies are happier, but the culture around me is homogenous and I'm not really happy at all.
I don't know friend. As a westerner, I know too well the blight of anomy and can't even imagine what a homogenous society feels like. What is not making you happy about your society? Is it peer pressure being too heavy? Can you be more specific?

>the majority of jobs are fast food and retail
Seems like a pretty empobrished area. Anyone with a brain would pick Portland or Seattle over LA or New York and these cities are way more homegeneous than the latter

>I don't know friend. As a westerner, I know too well the blight of anomy and can't even imagine what a homogenous society feels like. What is not making you happy about your society? Is it peer pressure being too heavy? Can you be more specific?

After thinking about it, I think my feelings are kind of petty and I'm not sure if Veeky Forums is a good place to talk about them

only really works if both cultures are tolerant about eachother

>I think my feelings are kind of petty and I'm not sure if Veeky Forums is a good place to talk about them
My displeasure of living in a multicultural country could easily be seen as petty too but whatever.

Anyway, I hope you'll find what you're looking for in life.

Different social strata have different cultures. Things inevitably go to shit when one of the classes joins a heretical sect so religion can not be used to bludgeon the other classes into submission.