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

Jun 2017
2,510
Connecticut
#21
Well, it was not really paradise under the ottomans....

As for the US, in its short history, diversity has been a major issue already... First the US genocided the locals, then it enslaved africans, and in parallel it basically ethnically cleansed mexicans....Asians (particularly chinese) had untermensch status.... The love for diversity has only been "a thing" for the past 40 years or so....
Didn't say it was. Said it was stable and the different groups of the Middle East were stable under varying rulers for millenia until we trashed the Ottoman Empire and decided to start drawing borders with a magic marker.

Different natives had different circumstances. The five civilized tribes though(non militant ones who were living in peace) were only deported against a court order and was quite controversial. Also in that case the racism was more a means to an end(stealing all the Native land) rather than due to "tensions". The other natives mostly didn't live in the US nor within the generally populated US borders and were treated as foreign nations/enemy combatants.

Africans were brought as a means to an economic end and racism was instilled as a way to morally justify a clearly immoral institution. After the events of the mid 19th century this blew into full scale structural racism which in turn naturally led to tensions. This was not inherently caused by diversity.

The parts of Mexico we conquered were quite thinly populated. We also fought a war with Mexico, unjust and opportunistic as it might have been .

Again really not the Asians fault that the locals had prejudice. Today Asians are the best performing ethnic demographic in the US. I think that counts as being a positive for the empire? One of our states has an Asian plurality, only one to have a non white plurality I think though one or two might be Hispanic and it's doing quite well.
 
Jun 2017
2,510
Connecticut
#23
Well, on the other hand look at what happened in (now defunct) Yugoslavia.... Even the czechs and the slovaks could not live as one state for long...
That doesn't speak to the Austro-Hungarian empire. Yugoslavia and the tensions that came with it only existed because of the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Yugoslavia existed because it was ethnically homogeneous to south slavs. These people like the people in Iraq and Syria had identities that had nothing to do with their skin complexion or heritage and these people did not get along despite according to ethno nationalism being the same. The fact you see Yugoslavia as a diverse country is only because of the conflict and it being split up, the whole pitch and it's reasoning was south slavic ethno state. So I think this is fuel for my case here though it appears otherwise from a modern perspective.

Same with Slovaks, of course they preferred being in Hungary(which they had been a part of since the 10th century AD during the Magyars original invasion) than being the minority in "Czechoslovakia". Bohemians were the ones who wanted that arrangement. Also Bohemia was always the unstable link in the Austro-Hungarian Empire due to being Protestant, most of the other groups cited are Catholics which was another unifying force. Bohemia were the exception and had been controlled for centuries after Bohemian pseudo nationalism almost destroyed the entire continent of Europe.
 
Jan 2019
11
Eastern Europe
#24
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.
But isn't Northern America has a bomb like Yellowstone? Also I wouldn't bet on UN Security Council as I doubt UN will be here forever.

Historically ethnic diversity has been a long term disadvantage, leading to strife, civil wars and eventual partition...
Agree with that. Most of the time third, second or whatever generation start to think about glorious days of the past and how they have the great legacy that was ruined and want to revive it. Also empires usually combine people from states that fought each other in the past.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2017
2,510
Connecticut
#26
But isn't Northern America has a bomb like Yellowstone? Also I wouldn't bet on UN Security Council as I doubt UN will be here forever.


Agree with that. Most of the time third, second or whatever generation start to think about glorious days of the past and how they have the great legacy that was ruined and want to revive it. Also empires usually combine people from states that fought each other in the past.
Very clever reply. Don't got an answer for that. Secure against human threats.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,251
US
#27
There will always be regional differences, something that has waned over the last generation or so due to mass media. If and when the composition of the U.S. changes significantly, it won't be uniform. Greater and stronger regional differences may likely resurface. Now that is diversity.
 
Nov 2017
866
Győr
#28
That doesn't speak to the Austro-Hungarian empire. Yugoslavia and the tensions that came with it only existed because of the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Yugoslavia existed because it was ethnically homogeneous to south slavs. These people like the people in Iraq and Syria had identities that had nothing to do with their skin complexion or heritage and these people did not get along despite according to ethno nationalism being the same. The fact you see Yugoslavia as a diverse country is only because of the conflict and it being split up, the whole pitch and it's reasoning was south slavic ethno state. So I think this is fuel for my case here though it appears otherwise from a modern perspective.

Same with Slovaks, of course they preferred being in Hungary(which they had been a part of since the 10th century AD during the Magyars original invasion) than being the minority in "Czechoslovakia". Bohemians were the ones who wanted that arrangement. Also Bohemia was always the unstable link in the Austro-Hungarian Empire due to being Protestant, most of the other groups cited are Catholics which was another unifying force. Bohemia were the exception and had been controlled for centuries after Bohemian pseudo nationalism almost destroyed the entire continent of Europe.
Yugoslavia was not ethnically homogenous. These nations genetically are not so closelly related. (Historum is not allowed to discuss genetics, so I finished that) culturally they were extremely different. Catholic Western civilization versus semi-asian eurasian orthodox + muslim. Even their language was not united. The Serbo-Croatian is a young 19th century development, which was spreaded by school system, before that, these languages were not really mutually intelligible.
 
Likes: Rodger
Jun 2017
2,510
Connecticut
#29
Yugoslavia was not ethnically homogenous. These nations genetically are not so closelly related. (Historum is not allowed to discuss genetics, so I finished that) culturally they were extremely different. Catholic Western civilization versus semi-asian eurasian orthodox + muslim. Even their language was not united. The Serbo-Croatian is a young 19th century development, which was spreaded by school system, before that, these languages were not really mutually intelligible.
Religion is not ethnicity and ethnicity is not relevant to said banned topic. Slavs and South Slavs were seen as races. Religion and cultural differences were the problem I agree but just goes to show that people who look the same don't always get along. Their language not being united is a bit of a complex issue. Most nationalism is an 18th and 19th century construct.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,863
Lisbon, Portugal
#30
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.
I didn't say South Africa was perfect, what I did say is that South Africa (post-apartheid) does still have a higher per capita income than almost all other African nations, including the homogeneous ones such as Libya and Somalia.

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 successful 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....
Libya as fewer population than the entire city of London, and they have lots of oil reserves, and the country is going downhill at the moment...Equatorial Guinea as fewer population than Gabon and plenty of oil reserves and it's a very low income country...do you really think that population size and geographical area plays a crucial factor?
 

Similar History Discussions