Where has multiculturalism been successful ?

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,206
Lisbon, Portugal
He excluded the past to forward a petty and transparent agenda of modern fascism.

sorry, i don't pander to that kind of anti-reason.

Cultural purists and racial purists are cut of the same cloth.


Just as inbreeding results in physiological decrepitude, so too does Cultural isolation breed stagnation and decline.
Hybrid vigor works as well with memes as it does with genes.
Just look at the modern human populations that had little to no mixing with other populations since the Pleistocene era - like the Khoisan, the Andamanese islanders, etc - they are in general not thriving at all from a demographic and technological standpoint.

All other populations have been stricken in one way or the other by "multiculturalism". This is just part of the human experience and from a long-term perspective, it was the main ingredient for the expansion of civilization. Of course that experience is not always pleasant and many times is violent, destructive and traumatic, but having a very extreme narrative that all human societies and populations should reject any kind of miscegenation or assimilation of other cultures whatsoever, is not only very unrealistic but completely detrimental in the long-term.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,614
Europix
Fine.... then this covers the whole history of the US, contrary to what others here have inferred so that they could make groundless accusations....
Firstly, it's not their fault: "modern times" in casual conversation is understood as last century.

Secondly, that doesn't matter that much, as You weren't answering my successfully/failing states proposition nor contesting the binomial I proposed You: You took only one part of the binomial, and only a couple of facts, on a particular period of time.

To be honest, it looks like eluding to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhiver

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,614
Europix
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...
They did, but until the late 19th it had a different meaning: it was the equivalent (in some sort) of "ethnicity", "people". Not that different from what English use as "breed" for animals (French still use it as such for animals for example).

The racial connotation we know today appeared later.

It didn't have it initially. Saying "the Briton race" was neutral. It became (or not) racist in the context (say, "that no good French race", or "that magnificent Belgian race" for example)
 
Jul 2019
168
Ghana
They did, but until the late 19th it had a different meaning: it was the equivalent (in some sort) of "ethnicity", "people". Not that different from what English use as "breed" for animals (French still use it as such for animals for example).

The racial connotation we know today appeared later.

It didn't have it initially. Saying "the Briton race" was neutral. It became (or not) racist in the context (say, "that no good French race", or "that magnificent Belgian race" for example)
I don't disagree. In Dutch, the term "ras" is used both for peoples (races) and animals like dogs, horses etc (breeds). So it's definitely not universally similar to the American conception of race, but from the colonial period, similar attitudes as those in America were picked up to justify colonialism itself, which was characterized as a civilizational mission of the inferior races. These kind of attitudes were still dominant until the decolonization period and even still rears its head among the more extremist crowds today. I'm not saying these attitudes are unique to Europeans or Americans, I was just reacting the statement that "race" is an American concept, which is a weird claim from a European perspective.

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.
I can't really disagree here...
 
Jul 2019
168
Ghana
It is the contrary... A society cannot be considered -in my view- multicultural if it discriminates (or worse) against certain cultures/ minorities
Then your view of multiculturalism is too narrow, because those things exist virtually everywhere, in one form or another. In some places discrimination is minimal, in others extreme, but there's always all sorts of discrimination in the purest sense, age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, language, physical ability, intelligence, schooling, and yes, culture and ethnicity have and are all used as standards for varying amounts of discrimination, whether it's benign, or logical (like no alcohol under 16), or whether it's backward (like a ban on female drivers) or draconian and morally reprehensible (like apartheid), they're all forms of discrimination that exist or have existed within multicultural societies around the world.

The shitty things that people do to each other are just intrinsic to society, not multiculturalism itself.

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....
Like I said in my other response, I really think you need to read up on your Mongol history. Buddha wasn't exactly Chinese either... I didn't deny they were a great power before, just saying that isolation leads to stagnation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhiver

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,614
Europix
It is the contrary... A society cannot be considered -in my view- multicultural if it discriminates (or worse) against certain cultures/ minorities
It is really tiresome and annoying, this lack of distinction (and btw, it's not only about You, one can hear it all over).

Multicultural means exactly what the word say: more than one culture.

A multicultural society means exactly what the locution say: a society formed by more than one cultural group.

And that is a fact. Sentinel Island are a monocultural society. China is a multicultural society.

The British islands of the 19th c were less multicultural than in 7th c. In the late 20th they became more multicultural than in the 19th.

Those are facts.

Multiculturalism exists (or not), evolves through time but it doesn't fail nor succeeds. A fact cannot "fail" nor "succeed"!

What You are mixing the multicultural fact with is the stance (of individuals, groups, society, state) on multiculturalism.


And there are two important issues with that confusion, issues that were more than evident in Your conversation with sundiata on Rwanda.

The first issue is one of logic: based on the Rwanda genocide You draw the conclusion that "multiculturalism doesn't work". Which is absurd: both "Genocide Rwanda" was multicultural (= doesn't work ?!?) as the "Post-Genocide Rwanda" is multicultural (= does work?!?).

The second issue it's one of interpretation, a very dangerous through its implications: "Genocide Rwanda " is a result not of the multiculturality of Rwanda but the result of a group's stance on multiculturality! And that stance is the rejection of the right to existence of the factual multiculturality.




If I said "dangerous", I said it because it's anhistorical, non-factual, it's a false native.

It's switching the causes.

It isn't far from puting the guilt on the victim and exonerating criminal's action, actually.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,030
Then your view of multiculturalism is too narrow, because those things exist virtually everywhere, in one form or another. In some places discrimination is minimal, in others extreme, but there's always all sorts of discrimination in the purest sense, age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, language, physical ability, intelligence, schooling, and yes, culture and ethnicity have and are all used as standards for varying amounts of discrimination, whether it's benign, or logical (like no alcohol under 16), or whether it's backward (like a ban on female drivers) or draconian and morally reprehensible (like apartheid), they're all forms of discrimination that exist or have existed within multicultural societies around the world.

The shitty things that people do to each other are just intrinsic to society, not multiculturalism itself.
Disagree. Discrimination is problem when it is translated into laws that are then upheld. Which is not the case in many countries, especially in Europe. If discrimination is done at the individual level (e.g.: this guy does not like you because... he thinks you have smelly feet or whatever), it is of course regrettable, but not a systemic issue...
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,030
It is really tiresome and annoying, this lack of distinction (and btw, it's not only about You, one can hear it all over).

Multicultural means exactly what the word say: more than one culture.

A multicultural society means exactly what the locution say: a society formed by more than one cultural group.

And that is a fact. Sentinel Island are a monocultural society. China is a multicultural society.
No, that is a minimalist definition that is firstly not how the term is understood nowadays, and secondly if applying that minimalist definition any group of 2 or more people would be multicultural (yes even the Sentinel islanders in your above example..... I wonder why you declare them monocultural when no one knows much about them due to their special status)... Such a definition would be by nature useless since and every group would be multicultural...