Is Diversity bad for A Nation's Prosperity?

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
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.
Just a small precision: nore Yougoslavia, nor Czechoslovakia we're communist creations.

And at least for Czechoslovakia, it didn't faltered, and the splitting had quite little to do with Communism, nationalism or even peoples' will: it was a political decision that surprised a bit the Czechs and Slovaks themselves.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,807
SoCal
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.
The percentage of certain ethnic groups in different US states is significantly different, though. For instance, the Western US has much less Blacks as a percentage of the total population than the Southern US and especially the Deep Southern US has.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,807
SoCal
Just a small precision: nore Yougoslavia, nor Czechoslovakia we're communist creations.

And at least for Czechoslovakia, it didn't faltered, and the splitting had quite little to do with Communism, nationalism or even peoples' will: it was a political decision that surprised a bit the Czechs and Slovaks themselves.
AFAIK, the Czechs and Slovaks couldn't figure out how to best share power after the collapse of Communism--which is why their leadership decided to split them up.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
AFAIK, the Czechs and Slovaks couldn't figure out how to best share power after the collapse of Communism--which is why their leadership decided to split them up.
Something like that.

It wasn't a failed country (quite the opposite amongst ex-commie countries), there wasn't real generalized anti-something feelings nor real tensions either.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,807
SoCal
Something like that.

It wasn't a failed country (quite the opposite amongst ex-commie countries), there wasn't real generalized anti-something feelings nor real tensions either.
Yeah, it was a peaceful divorce where the husband and wife (or is it husband and husband, or wife and wife?) agreed to maintain great relations and to remain great friends afterwards. :)
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,437
Athens, Greece
"Is diversity bad for a Nation's prosperity?"

It depends on what holds a nation together, and how much diversity can fit in without weakening its binding factor. For nations founded around a specific ethnicity and in which this specific ethnicity holds the protokathedria (primacy), by having its language as the official one, its culture as the dominant one, and often a prevailing or even state religion, the margins of acceptable diversity that falls outside these factors are limited. Exceed them, and one risks destabilisation of the national construct, as the dominant ethnic group will most probably react to the loss of the dominant status of its characteristics (language, culture, etc).

For nations not founded as the polity (the political embodiment) of a specific ethnos (ethnicity), but upon allegiance to a specific State, Constitution, Institution, or even Ideology, those margins can be quite broad indeed. As long as the diverse groups accept to place themselves under the umbrella of the founding principles of the specific state, swear allegiance to them and in turn hold the umbrella up themselves, they too can fit in and become components of the nation. To the degree that the binding factor of the state, its founding principles are upheld, there is no limit, at least in theory, to the amount of diversity that can fit in, strengthening and not weakening the polity and its respective nation.

Now, there are two kind of polities (and nations) not founded around a specific ethnicity, the ones of the 'New World' created by colonists and immigrants (like the USA, Canada, Australia, etc), and the ones of the 'Old World' where various ethnicities are bound together by a common state, but retain more or less their ethnic cultural and geographical vital space. Various empires of the past fall into the latter category, like the Persian empire, the Hellenistic Kingdoms, the Roman empire, the Ottoman empire, the Holy Roman empire, Austria-Hungary, etc, the Soviet Union from the recent past with an ideology (Communism) as the binding factor, the UK, Switzerland and Belgium as current examples, among others. If, contrary to all recent indications, the EU manages in the future to develop a strong binding factor, becoming a proper federal state and its residents a single nation, it will be one such case, a mosaic of diverse, separate ethnic groups co-operating to create a whole. It could be argued that exactly because colonists and immigrants abandon their primary ethnic cradles to become part of something new, the polities created this way tend to be more stable, whereas in polities of the second variety the pull to create a nation around a specific, well-defined ethnic group remains strong, often creating centrifugal, divisive forces, especially when the binding factor weakens or was never strong to begin with.

With that said, diversity is life itself, starting from the biological level. Without a plethora of combining factors and elements, life wouldn't have been possible. Without genetic mutations -diversifications- evolution, adaptation to the environment and survival of life wouldn't have been possible. On a social level, the first step towards diversity is the decision to form a nucleus, a family, with another person, and to live within a society with other people, individually diverse. Humanity, throughout the millennia, has created a myriad of different cultures, languages to express them, strains of thought and all the manifestations that constitute civilisation. Though, arguably, this diversity has contributed to the violent nature of human history, it has also pushed humanity forward as contact between various cultures and civilisations allowed fertile ideas to pass from one to another, allowing new forms of creativity to materialise. There is no doubt that diversity is beneficent - the question is not if, but how much. How much it can fit within a specific system -be it a biological, social, or political one- without risking unbalancing the whole construct. The golden rule - metron ariston, all in good measure. And for this reason, there can be no universal answer, only a case by case one.

Finally, I'd like to stress again the importance of keeping alive and preserving mankind's magnificent heritage, its various languages, cultures, and all the diverse creations of the human mind and soul. These are our treasures and should be mutually respected, celebrated and safe-kept. How to respect this diversity is of primary concern and the political discussion should serve this goal. If only so much diversity can prosper within a national construct, then so be it. If more can fit in, all the better. The point is we should not allow our political beliefs to dictate solutions on a black and white axis, politics should serve goals and not become a goal unto itself.
 
There is no one answer, diversity or not people find things to fight about.

Social cohesion though and community can be effected by it, but its not the 1940's anymore, the tech, cars, communication devices we have these days means we're not confined to friends and neighbours who live "on our block" so to speak as much as yesteryear.

So then it comes down to peoples preference, in that instance you'll have to be willing to relocate to find what you want if your that bothered.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,429
India
Just a small precision: nore Yougoslavia, nor Czechoslovakia we're communist creations.

And at least for Czechoslovakia, it didn't faltered, and the splitting had quite little to do with Communism, nationalism or even peoples' will: it was a political decision that surprised a bit the Czechs and Slovaks themselves.
As far I know Tito did tried suppressing the ethnic aspirations in Yugoslavia and when he died the ethnic difference came wide open leading to one of the bloodiest war in the Europe post World War 2.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,807
SoCal
As far I know Tito did tried suppressing the ethnic aspirations in Yugoslavia and when he died the ethnic difference came wide open leading to one of the bloodiest war in the Europe post World War 2.
Tito made a mistake in not drawing Yugoslavia's internal borders based on ethnic lines, though.
 

Similar History Discussions