Superpower of the Human Race: Could America losing its Western identity give it a strategic edge?

Mrbsct

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
2,620
USA
#1
More and more we are seeing an United States transformed from a continuation of European identity to one of a more global multiethnic nation. European Americans even without immigration will become will no longer make up 50% of the nation.

Can America giving up its Western identity give it a strategic edge? This is a complete transformation away from the idea of the "West". History textbooks will be reversed from a less Eurocentral one to one of all backgrounds. Art and culture will reflect a global history of different backgrounds rather than a European one.

How can this give America the strategic edge?
-Cultural capital to attract different people to nation, immigrants apply not just for economic reasons
-Increased attraction for investors and high skilled employees
-Increased Diplomatic power
-More cultural understanding of the different ethnic groups of America

Negatives
-Potentially cultural favoritism and distrust.
-Idea of a melting pot will give the idea of diluting unique cultures
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,224
#2
People majoritarily move to where the money is, ethnic diversity is not a factor in choice of destination (or if it its not among the top 5)... Saudi Arabia is thus among the top 3 migrant destinations worldwide, not because of its great ethnic diversity but because there is money to be earned.

Historically ethnic diversity has been a long term disadvantage, leading to strife, civil wars and eventual partition...
 
Likes: Isleifson
Jun 2017
2,780
Connecticut
#3
More and more we are seeing an United States transformed from a continuation of European identity to one of a more global multiethnic nation. European Americans even without immigration will become will no longer make up 50% of the nation.

Can America giving up its Western identity give it a strategic edge? This is a complete transformation away from the idea of the "West". History textbooks will be reversed from a less Eurocentral one to one of all backgrounds. Art and culture will reflect a global history of different backgrounds rather than a European one.

How can this give America the strategic edge?
-Cultural capital to attract different people to nation, immigrants apply not just for economic reasons
-Increased attraction for investors and high skilled employees
-Increased Diplomatic power
-More cultural understanding of the different ethnic groups of America

Negatives
-Potentially cultural favoritism and distrust.
-Idea of a melting pot will give the idea of diluting unique cultures
Western doesn't equal Europeans. Most Europeans during the Roman days were either from the backwater provinces or undeveloped barbarians beyond the Empire's borders(the most successful European countries meet this definition). Western is supposed to be a geographical term to differentiate from Asia, how the people look is irrelevant. Middle East met the general civics criteria of being "Western" before almost any of Europe did.

The end product of multculturalism will be America becoming an American ethno state in several centuries with the people looking quite different than today(think Latin America). American history as taught in schools was never Euro centric it's American centric/state history centric and will continue to be same as it is in most countries. US history curriculum already largely ignores Europe unless it ties into the American story(for example WWI is often taught as July Crisis,skip, Lusitania sinking, skip, US involvement) and they do the same with every other region. White or European is a fake identity meant to be a reflection of "black" or African and black identity only exists because black people aren't aware of their exact heritage and had no alternative not because it's a thing.

I think your answer is basically what NYC has right now, which is hard to explain, most people in the US aren't aware of that sort of culture because the rest of the country fits a very different demographic profile and are anxious about something that has happened elsewhere that has changed very little. I assure you nothing substantive changes besides how people look. We did have people proud of all of their individual cultures, separate European ones included(Greek identity was very popular if not the most popular growing up in my area) and in NY people often ask what are you and you tend to answer with another country and this is not seen as not American, it is assumed you are American it's kind of a separate thing? Don't know how to explain what I'm saying? Thing is if everyone's diverse, people will stop viewing it in a group context and not being mixed or having other cultural influences will become the exception not the norm.

I don't agree with the negatives and besides the last one(and temporarily at that, eventually I expect everyone to start looking the same in several centuries) don't agree with the positives. US will likely never hold the same dominant position it once did in geopolitics and given how much money is spent exerting influence, the rolling back of this influence is the closest thing to a pan ideological consensus the US has, US will get more isolationist regardless and focus on domestic policy it's only a matter of time. US's main strength is it has the most secure geographic position and size in human history and a nuclear arsenal and has a UN Security Council veto. While it's position as a great power might be perpetual and it might even remain immortal to outside pressure for millenia we are not going to be the most powerful country on earth forever and our ability to exert influence offensively will be diminished especially in regards to China which is the only country on earth where I think surpassing the US is almost inevitable. Possible no one else ever does given how the system works against countries outside of the UNSC permanent members and how the other three members of that group are all declining(Russia and the UK) and/or don't have the potential to be as powerful as the US or China(France). EU and maybe India are the only long term possibilities I can fathom.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2017
2,780
Connecticut
#4
People majoritarily move to where the money is, ethnic diversity is not a factor in choice of destination (or if it its not among the top 5)... Saudi Arabia is thus among the top 3 migrant destinations worldwide, not because of its great ethnic diversity but because there is money to be earned.

Historically ethnic diversity has been a long term disadvantage, leading to strife, civil wars and eventual partition...
If you are citing Austro-Hungarian Empire, that example is almost all nonsense.
 
Likes: Futurist

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,224
#5
If you are citing Austro-Hungarian Empire, that example is almost all nonsense.
Pls expand on your comment....

In particular if you have examples of successful long term empires built on ethnic diversity, please provide.... In other threads we have a poster from Africa arguing that the issue of most african states is that they have ethnic diversity which creates massive governance issues with the results we know. He has a goood point
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,807
SoCal
#6
Pls expand on your comment....

In particular if you have examples of successful long term empires built on ethnic diversity, please provide.... In other threads we have a poster from Africa arguing that the issue of most african states is that they have ethnic diversity which creates massive governance issues with the results we know. He has a goood point
Not an empire, but India does OK with its massive level of diversity.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,224
#8
Not an empire, but India does OK with its massive level of diversity.
Well, you'll note that a united, independent India has really only existed for about 70 years -so not really long term- and it has already been partitioned (pakistan, bengladesh). Moreover its diversity is somewhat limited when you compare it to what the OP has in mind
 
Likes: Futurist

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,986
Lisbon, Portugal
#9
Pls expand on your comment....

In particular if you have examples of successful long term empires built on ethnic diversity, please provide.... In other threads we have a poster from Africa arguing that the issue of most african states is that they have ethnic diversity which creates massive governance issues with the results we know. He has a goood point
Somalia and Libya are very ethnically homogeneous nations in Africa, and see the results there....whereas Gabon and South Africa are very diverse and are among the most prosperous countries in Africa on a per capita basis.
The same thing we can compare between Bangladesh or Singapore in the Asian continent. There are way more factors than just diversity to explain the level of stability and prosperity of a nation.
 
Likes: Futurist

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,224
#10
Somalia and Libya are very ethnically homogeneous nations in Africa, and see the results there....whereas Gabon and South Africa are very diverse and are among the most prosperous countries in Africa on a per capita basis.
The same thing we can compare between Bangladesh or Singapore in the Asian continent. There are way more factors than just diversity to explain the level of stability and prosperity of a nation.
Are you seriously going to use South Africa as an example of successful diversity ? The country has had massive discrimination longer than it has had equality.

Gabon has barely 2 million people (a medium size city) and is only "prosperous" thanks to Oil... and Singapore IS a city ....

I am still not seeing any examples of long term succesful diverse empires here... Since you are currently in China you know that China was built by trying to erase diversity wherever possible (which it still does, with Tibet and the Ouighours)... On a smaller scale, so was France....
 

Similar History Discussions