Is Diversity bad for A Nation's Prosperity?

Apr 2018
726
Upland, Sweden
Before I go to bed I want to expand a previous thought and throw it out there:

Is there perhaos even a directly adversarial relationship between Ethnic diversity and Intellectual diversity?

If we once again take the two examples that have been thrown around here of succesful "diverse" countries: Switzerland is routinely characterized as the most boring country in Europe. As for the United States, the only indigenous American philosophical tradition I am aware of is that of "the American pragmatists" (could you choose a less colourful more middle of the road name for a school of thought?). AlpinLuke also characterized the US as "highly generic terrestrial beings".

Anyway, are these coincidences? Personally I am inclined to think not. :cool:
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,425
Lower Styria, Slovenia
Of course I'll disagree! :)

Belgium as a not successful country ... using what referential for concluding that?

- It's "an artificial country" (90% of Belgians will launch You that if You talk with them more than 5 minutes). An artificial country, that shouldn't, couldn't exist. Still there, closing to 200th anniversary.

- Economically, social welfare, health care ... check any rating and look were it's situated.
I have expressed myself a bit clumsy. As successful I only meant the coexsistance of the Waloons and Flemings (which could be better) and all the birocracy that evolved out of it. I wasn't criticising other things. I don't think I'm entitled to criticise the things you counted.

- Best friends ... honestly, I've heard worst from Germans from Munchen on Germans from Rostok. I have a good friend from Toulouse, that when it comes to history, invariably gives me : "since French occupied us ..."
Yes, well, you see ... a Preiß bleibt a Preiß. :winktongue:
And the French are notorious for their dislike for Paris and the centralised government, even though it's exactly this that made them strong in the previous centuries.

Anyway, I entered a bit too much into this ethnic thing and by contradicting some things I consider false I might have a false idea: that I deny the importance of ethnicity, of language.

I don't.

I contest the projections and the over-emphasizing
I think we'll disagree because we view things differently. In Western Europe you can become part of a country and its people by aquiring its citizenship. I think some places don't even require you to know the language. I might be wrong, but this is the impression I get sometimes. It probably isn't so in most cases. In my neck of the woods and further East citizenship is not enough. You have to know the language fluently. And if your ethnicity is different, you'll always be viewed a little differently. That's not my idea, it's what I see. People who's grandparents came from down South, whose parents were already born here, who speak Slovene perfectly and don't identify with the country of their grandparents or parents still are "čefurji" in the heads of a lot of people just because their surname ends with -ić. Is that right? I don't know. I know that it's real though. And when Slovenes go to Germany or Austria they're just another Balaknitzer or Tschusch or something like that in the eyes of some people, even though they think they're different and special. When you're at home you may habe certain privileges. But once you go live in another country you better play by their rules. That's what I believe in.

You are right, these are things that are complicated, there is too many generalisations and exceptions and they get dirty very quickly.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,206
India
So, essentially Switzerland is divided into several even more ethnically homogenous mini-states (the cantons) that have banded together for political reasons? ;) Okay, so why do the boundaries of the cantons look the way they do? Is a canton more or less ethnically homogenous than a state?

I do not disagree with what you write, but I will refer to what I wrote in my last post.
Actually, such type of mini-states make the country more stronger, people are free to use their own language and can make their own laws. Thus, nobody would complain that their culture or language is not respected in their country. A non-Federal form of government don't work in a country work in a country with multiple ethnic groups. Even in India we have similar political setup of "Language states" since 1956 and it permanently solved the issue of regional grievances.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,206
India
Biology tells us that diversity is a pivotal asset to improve. History can tell us something similar: which is the most successful country in the world?
US ... the country with the greatest diversity ever. Despite what Trump can say, US have been made by migrants coming from all over the world and today "Americans" are actually generic terrestrial beings.
80% Americans speak English, each and every states of America has an English speaking majority. Its not a multi ethnic state in the sense we see in the rest of the world.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,664
SoCal
80% Americans speak English, each and every states of America has an English speaking majority. Its not a multi ethnic state in the sense we see in the rest of the world.
We have people of different races and ethnic groups here, though. Out of the U.S.'s total population, only about 60% is non-Hispanic White--a percentage that is projected to fall to below 50% by the middle of the 21st century.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,887
Korea
We have people of different races and ethnic groups here, though. Out of the U.S.'s total population, only about 60% is non-Hispanic White--a percentage that is projected to fall to below 50% by the middle of the 21st century.
Yes, and even among people of the same ostensible ethnicity, regional culture can produce real differences. For example, a White Evangelical Alabaman may actually have less in common with a White Catholic New Yorker than a Black New Yorker does. Perhaps more importantly, the two may very well want to minimize what they have in common; individual members of the two groups in question will often look poorly upon the other group, think of them in negative terms, and actively want to distance themselves from association. There is a psychological phenomenon, fairly easy to detect, which causes people to be less likely to accept an idea or practice if they hear that it is endorsed by their "opposition," and that probably plays a role here. In other words, it's not just that division exists, but that the division which exists is of a self-reinforcing, and possibly even self-magnifying, sort.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2018
726
Upland, Sweden
Actually, such type of mini-states make the country more stronger, people are free to use their own language and can make their own laws. Thus, nobody would complain that their culture or language is not respected in their country. A non-Federal form of government don't work in a country work in a country with multiple ethnic groups. Even in India we have similar political setup of "Language states" since 1956 and it permanently solved the issue of regional grievances.
Interesting!

If channeled in this particular way different ethnicities might actually even have a positive impact on social and economic development in the country at large: it makes sure the central government does not become too powerful, and it forces people to take responsibility locally, thus creating a more autonomous and a stronger population. This might be a bit of a naïve and an idealized version on my part I admit, but I think there is some truth to it.

This is one of the reasons I am optimistic about India. I think China now seems to be getting into a situation where the needs and desires of the Xi Jinping and the CCP fundamentally conflict with those of the country as a whole. In India on the other hand, while (from what I've understood, I don't want to tell you what your own country is like) it might be more difficult to make and implement decisions quickly, and there might be more obvious (but not necessarily greater) problems with corruption as well as mal-administration, there is I think also better grounds for long term and consistent development. "The turtle vs the hare", kind of...

But once again, I am no expert on this
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,206
India
We have people of different races and ethnic groups here, though. Out of the U.S.'s total population, only about 60% is non-Hispanic White--a percentage that is projected to fall to below 50% by the middle of the 21st century.
We still can't say America has regionalism. Almost all states of America have a mixed racial ancestry with English as the major spoken language at home. Compared to that we still different ethnic group inhabiting in countries like United Kingdom or Switzerland.
 
Likes: Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,206
India
Interesting!

If channeled in this particular way different ethnicities might actually even have a positive impact on social and economic development in the country at large: it makes sure the central government does not become too powerful, and it forces people to take responsibility locally, thus creating a more autonomous and a stronger population. This might be a bit of a naïve and an idealized version on my part I admit, but I think there is some truth to it.

This is one of the reasons I am optimistic about India. I think China now seems to be getting into a situation where the needs and desires of the Xi Jinping and the CCP fundamentally conflict with those of the country as a whole. In India on the other hand, while (from what I've understood, I don't want to tell you what your own country is like) it might be more difficult to make and implement decisions quickly, and there might be more obvious (but not necessarily greater) problems with corruption as well as mal-administration, there is I think also better grounds for long term and consistent development. "The turtle vs the hare", kind of...

But once again, I am no expert on this
That's the drawbacks of multiparty state in India vs authoritarian regime of a single party in China leading to faster decision making but again nobody wants an authoritarian regime which curbs the freedom. Corruption in India and China are to the same extent. Beside this, the nationalism communism promotes is a forced, people hardly have a sense of nationalism and when it loosened countries like Yugoslavia, Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia faltered. But in case of China its mainly the Han nationalism vs the 56 ethnic minorities, what I have seen Chinese nationalism is a synonym of Han nationalism, it will survive even if communism end there.
 
Sep 2014
801
Texas
Alexander the Great tried to force multiculturalism on his troops and it failed miserably. Only one of his generals stayed married to his Persian wife and he was the founder of the Seleucid dynasty. It didn't last as long as the Ptolemid Dynasty. Multiculturalism is not bad if it's not forced on people. Japan is not multicultural, and let's face it only European and European founded countries are being attacked. I won't be around when the bottom falls out of America, but it wll ill happen. I mean Rome thought they would last forever....it will have lasted longer than the US.
 

Similar History Discussions