Where has multiculturalism been successful ?

[tomar]

where has multiculturalism been successful?

China- Orginally 18 different cultures- unified to form the longest lasting nation on earth.
Egypt was made stronger and more powerful thru the union of the cultures of the upper and lower nile.

The USA- the most mulitcultural nation in history- also the most powerful. Literally dubbed the "melting pot".

Britain had an empire as long as it had multicultural connections around the world. And it began when the Angles, Saxons, and Danes, and Welsh stopped thinking of themselves as separate cultures and all agreed to be One basic nation.

Rome started as one small tribe on the Tiber and came to embrace cultures all around the Mediterranean.


y'know- it looks like multiculturalism is pretty much the KEY to success thru all of human history.

China is precisely the contrary of multiculturalism... It is a strong centralized state that basically creates a common "template" for everyone... as long as people accept that template they are fine... if not they are in trouble (ask tibetans or uighurs about it)

In the next examples you are confusing empires that expand to take over (temporarily, for some longer, for some shorter) other cultures and impose their "world order"... The british empire never treated all of its subjects equally.... If the british empire had been an example of succesful multiculturalism it would still exist, for it was not defeated by external ennemies... The roman empire as already discussed would employ genocide when deemed convenient...
All empires have different cultures subjugated within them, the presence of which does not constitute multiculturalism... Otherwise we'd have to say to the mongols under gengis khan were a great success of multiculturalism...

The US has already been addressed .... it has a history of racism that cannot be denied.... and that ended only a few decades ago.... (in fact some claim it has not ended still)... so it is too early to trumpet success..... Not to mention that the wealth of the US is due to its abundant resources and favorable geography more so than any other factor....

 

[Hoosierhiver]

Define "modern times"

"race" is an american concept..... europeans do not use it, just so you know

Then I'll presume you are not European since you seem to focus on race and ignore culture, just so you know...

 

[tomar]

Yes, really. Again, let me remind You multicultural isn't resumed to ethnicity (I think You've said it recently too, or maybe it's my memory failing me?)


Success or failure isn't given moment, but a process, in time.

So, question 1: how comes "we" take not the evolution of the state/society, but a certain period only?

and question 2: how about You to comment/contest the second example: the monocultural one?

You know, as in where the two started from and where they arrived to?

The US has a history of (depending on whether you consider it started around the american revolution or upon the arrival of the first pilgirms or somewhere between the 2) some 250 years to 400 years... Even if we take the lower figure, it has only been about 50 years since the US can be considered multicultural (since before that there were all kinds of discrimination) , so that is only 20% of the US existence and about 2 generations....

So, yes, indeed why do you focus on the last few decades only ?

 

[tomar]

Then I'll presume you are not European since you seem to focus on race and ignore culture, just so you know...

Please point out where I have "focused on race"

And you have not defined "modern times"

 

[Sundiata1]

"race" is an american concept..... europeans do not use it, just so you know

Europeans literally invented it... Yes, it's not considered politically or even scientifically correct, nor is it used in bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still many Europeans that hold profoundly racial views of the world...

Otherwise we'd have to say to the mongols under gengis khan were a great success of multiculturalism...

Really? Might want to read up on Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire again...

You also talk about historical discrimination and inequality as if these are defining traits of multicultural society, while they are in fact defining traits of society, period. Social startification can take many forms. Either way, retroactively applying modern ethics to historical periods has little to do with assessing the "success" or "failure" of multiculturalism. You can't view everything through a single lens, which is kind of what you're doing here.

China is precisely the contrary of multiculturalism... It is a strong centralized state that basically creates a common "template" for everyone... as long as people accept that template they are fine... if not they are in trouble (ask tibetans or uighurs about it)

China's stellar rise to power lies exactly in them "opening up" to the world. Now that things have become more closed and repressive again, China will start experiencing regression, or a slowdown at least.

 

[tomar]

You also talk about historical discrimination and inequality as if these are defining traits of multicultural society, while they are in fact defining traits of society, period. Social startification can take many forms. Either way, retroactively applying modern ethics to historical periods has little to do with assessing the "success" or "failure" of multiculturalism. You can't view everything through a single lens, which is kind of what you're doing here.


China's stellar rise to power lies exactly in them "opening up" to the world. Now that things have become more closed and repressive again, China will start experiencing regression, or a slowdown at least.

It is the contrary... A society cannot be considered -in my view- multicultural if it discriminates (or worse) against certain cultures/ minorities

You have a strange view of China... China was a power for centuries (it was estimated to produce 25% of world GDP for literrally some 2000 years... of course one can dispute the accuracy of such historical estimates, but China's economy was still very large) ... then it had a period of decline.... now it is basically regaining its previous place.... "Opening up to the world", in China's case, is simply opening up trade, investment (both incoming and outgoing) and boosting its economy to regain its former glory....

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[deaf tuner]

Define "modern times"

Used as in "modern History": aprox from the (late) 16th (end of Middle Ages/beginning of Enlightening) onwards.

 

[Hoosierhiver]

"race" is an american concept..... europeans do not use it, just so you know

Hitler would disagree.

 

[tomar]

Europeans literally invented it... Yes, it's not considered politically or even scientifically correct, nor is it used in bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still many Europeans that hold profoundly racial views of the world...

In the US this concept is part of "normal life"... most questionnaires one fills have a "race" question,,, not so in Europe

And while you are right that the concept originated with europeans, it is americans who signicantly expanded on it and tried to give it some scientific basis.. of course Nazi Germany later on picked up the topic, but after its defeat, this topic is essentially dead in Europe, at least officially

And you are right: there are people who hold "profoundly racial views", but that is present basically everywhere, not specifically in Europe...

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

Contemporary scholars agree that "race" was a recent invention and that it was essentially a folk idea, not a product of scientific research and discovery.

Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the image of Africans began to change dramatically. The major catalyst for this transformation was the rise of a powerful antislavery movement that expanded and strengthened during the Revolutionary Era both in Europe and in the United States. As a consequence proslavery forces found it necessary to develop new arguments for defending the institution. Focusing on physical differences, they turned to the notion of the natural inferiority of Africans and thus their God-given suitability for slavery. Such arguments became more frequent and strident from the end of the eighteenth century on, and the characterizations of Africans became more negative.

Historian George Fredrickson states explicitly that "before 1830 open assertions of permanent black inferiority were exceedingly rare" (The Black Image in the White Mind, 1987). By mid-century, the ideology of "negro inferiority" dominated both popular and scholarly thought.

What is so striking about the American experience in creating such an extreme conception of human differences was the role played by scientists and scholars in legitimizing the folk ideas

American intellectuals appropriated, and rigidified, the categories of human groups established by European scholars during the eighteenth century, but ignored Blumenbach's caution that human groups blend insensibly into one another, so that it is impossible to place precise boundaries around them.

 

[tomar]

Used as in "modern History": aprox from the (late) 16th (end of Middle Ages/beginning of Enlightening) onwards.

Fine.... then this covers the whole history of the US, contrary to what others here have inferred so that they could make groundless accusations....