Where has multiculturalism been successful ?

Nov 2019
Memphis TN
The Romans even attempted to completely erase the Jewish presence and heritage of the region. They abolished the province of Judea, merging it with Syria to create a new province of Syria Palestina and Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina, a run of the mill Roman city.

They purged the Jewish leadership and high ranking clergy.. and purged to the extent that only the Romans could do lol..

Did such a good job the Dead Sea scrolls were the ONLY thing that survived.

However as the other poster wrote. They did not purge the average citizen though... unless they were in a city in rebellion.

They killed the leadership and replaced them with others more sympathetic to Roman sensibilities.

There are lots of legit and conspiracy theories about why in the aftermath you have a kinder gentler Christianity/Judaism come out the other end....

Was it....

A) the Flavian conspiracy where the Romans purposely changed the 2 religions. Rewriting them to be more passive rather than militant...

B) did they just kill all the militant Christians and Jews . So a more passive religion was just the natural result??

C) anything in between... maybe they implement their personal picks and the more passive ones came from them more than Rome..

The thing is to have a nation that is an economic powerhouse requires trade.. trade requires immigrants.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
Republika Srpska
Eh, according to Cassius Dio, Romans killed 580,000 Jews (others died of famine) and that Judea was left desolate. Certainly an exaggeration, but we cannot really say the Romans did not purge ordinary Jews.


Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
It is no different than with genetics..

When 2 “races” mix the better traits win out. Both races equally change, depending on the mixture of course..

The side that “wins” is the one that doesn’t reject that change.
Sorry, but this sounds a lot like pseudo science.... Basically when any 2 people have kids, it is a lottery..... Kids could be "better" or "worse" than their parents in any number of traits.....

For example, one indicator that kids do not necessarily get better is the declining IQ issue

People are getting dumber. That's not a judgment; it's a global fact. In a host of leading nations, IQ scores have started to decline.

These days, however, Flynn himself concedes that "the IQ gains of the 20th century have faltered." A range of studies using a variety of well-established IQ tests and metrics have found declining scores across Scandinavia, Britain, Germany, France and Australia.
Details vary from study to study and from place to place given the available data. IQ shortfalls in Norway and Denmark appear in longstanding tests of military conscripts, whereas information about France is based on a smaller sample and a different test. But the broad pattern has become clearer: Beginning around the turn of the 21st century, many of the most economically advanced nations began experiencing some kind of decline in IQ.

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
I would agree, but with an important caveat. The immigrants need to somewhat assimilate.
Not necessarily. The fundamental condition is to integrate, not to assimilate.

What You prefer: an assimilated serial killer or a not assimilated but well integrated hard working low-abiding immigrant?
  • Like
Reactions: Abraham95

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
The Romans imposed (or tried to) their way of life
Not exactly true.

For a good period the Romans impositions were very simple: pay Your taxes and keep quiet. It changed when an official religion was adopted. But even then, cultural impositions were "loose".

If so many Romanised, adopted the Roman way of life it was very little by imposition but by desire to adopt it as perceived like a superior, a better one.


Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
What are cases of success ?... What are cases of failure ? What is the rough ratio of success to failure

Here is a case of failure (Malmo , Sweden)

Multiple cases of failure are related to the breakdown of empires (for example Austria Hungary) or even countries (Yugoslavia)

The difficulty lies in defining "multiculturalism"

Mulitculturalism is defined as the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society.

The key point here is "distinct" , i.e. not integrated with the mainstream culture of the country..... As always it is difficult to define such concepts precisely... For example having a different diet is "not it", whilst not speaking the country's official language "is it"..... Importing different sets of customs that do not align with the country's traditions and core values would be "it" as well
With regards to so-called multiculturalism, in your opinion do you see any positive examples of this throughout history?

how do you define multiculturalism? Do you know that for example the Roman empire was inclusive of Arabs, Africans and Europeans that is diversity right there and I believe that that would fall in line with your definition of multiculturalism, correct?

Put it this way which empires or kingdoms were not diverse? Can you name one of them throughout history? Even the ones that were majority Catholic or Muslim they had different ethnicities. It’s an interesting subject Nonetheless

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
let us not argue technicalities,
But it isn't a technicality!

It's one of the specificity of the state called USA. Other states have other specificities, and it's not solely about official language.

You can't use the same analysis on a state that hasn't an official language, one that has one and one that has two or three official languages.


Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
Lorraine tudesque
If you would travel to Alsace Lorraine in december you would certainly try to visit the famous Christmas markets.

Well since some years they changed a lot.

Now we could make some silly statistics about Swedish visitors drinking to much muled wine, but that is not really the problem.


deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
Honestly, the problem with discussions on multiculturalism (and this thread is a good example) is that it's too often based on a false view.

Multiculturalism isn't good nor bad, isn't successful nor falling. Multiculturalism is.

The discussion should be put on it's real rails: how a state is dealing multiculturalism. Exactly as we (can) discuss how a state is dealing criminality. Or education. Or economy.

The wrong frame that characterizes these kind of discussions is the reason they're endless: A will prove beyond doubt, with irrefutable examples that multiculturalism doesn't work while B will prove the contrary. And both are right, actually. Simply because working out or failing, is related to the state (but society and its components too) approach on multiculturalism, not on multiculturalism itself.

If we look in history, we will find plenty of examples of multicultural statal organisations that worked well for a period and failed afterwards. If we look closely, we will find the reason for what seems a contradiction: the state itself, or the society, or significant parts of the society changed their approach on multiculturalism.

Not different from criminality, after all. Places that were unviable nests of criminality became safe heavens, and vice-versa. But it's not that the human "criminal propensity" that changed. What changed it's how the state/society (re)acted towards criminality.