You guys got any examples of multicultural societies in historical times that was successful?
U.S. Is doing pretty well. Race relations aren't necessarily great; but it's pretty successful.
>>683248
The Roman Empire.
>>683248
Define "culture"
Anyways I guess HRE
>>683248
Kingdom of Sicily was doing alright for a time.
>Rome
>Hellenistic Greece
>Every central asian empire ever
>Songhai
>The Arabian empires
>The Persian empires
>Mahajaphit
>>683248
Finno-Korean Union
>>683277
>Hellenistic Greece
this desu
India
China
Babylon
Austro-Hungary
Inca (short lived, though)
Ottoman emprie
>>683283
Were all of those races free? Or were some of those people enslaved?
>>683286
People of every race could be slaves. You were considered Greek if you lived there and spoke Greek... mostly.
Every state was more multicultural in the olden times.
French wasn't even the majority language in France when Napoleon was alive!
Western style education systems, and good old fashioned ethnic cleansing, are why western society is so homogeneous compared to itself in the past, or to other countries around the world.
>>683290
>western style education
Can you elaborate on how this causes a more uniform culture? Or how it differs from other cultural types of education?
Diversity is fine as long as it develops voluntarily and serves ulterior purposes.
Diversity for the sake of diversity produces ethnic strife, hatred, violence and the deterioration of institutions, governments and society as a whole
>>683296
>Racism for the sake of racism produces ethnic strife, hatred, violence and the deterioration of institutions, governments and society as a whole
Fixed that for you pham
>>683289
what ethnicity lives there?
>>683290
what did they speak in france?
>>683293
The central government orders every school to teach standard French, not the language the locals spoke, which would be called 'bad french', not just a dialect.
It's sort of like when people say that black people can't speak English; they're really saying they can't speak that dialect.
>>683305
Hellenized lands. A portion of the land where from there to Alexandria, Athens, and west of the Indus you might speak greek and be understood.
>>683265
>HRE
>Successful
>>683310
Classical latin
>>683286
>Were all of those races free?
No, but everybody was a candidate for slavery
It was a beautiful time, people trading gods and customs like baseball cards
Hercules would up in Japan as a result and the Nubian Bes wound up in Southern Europe
>>683310
Plenty of languages, with a range as different from modern French as modern French is from modern Italian or modern Spanish. The same existed in Italy and Spain, and still do in all three of these countries, in some isolated places.
>>683321
Why are French people such authoritarian fags about how people speak? Even today you can apparently be fined for using English loanwords instead of French equivalents, although I'm not sure how frequent this is IRL. Frogs trying way too hard to stay relevant.
>>683302
>Diversity is its own reward
>Diversity is good because it benefits diversity societies
Go beg the question somewhere else
>>683346
Fuck off to /pol/ if you want to argue with a multicultural strawman amalgamation of shit I never said. Seriously.
>>683344
>wanting to preserve your language from anglo colonisation
How authoritarian
>>683338
I don't know about France, but as far as Spain and Italy go it's not to do with isolated places. Speaking your regional dialect in addition to Italian is quite common in Italy and there are many languages other than Castillian spoken in Spain.
>>683346
>I like putting words in people's mouths because I see the world in strawmen
>>683353
>fuck off to /pol/
Nice argument.
>>683375
>act like a flaming tard
>people who are fed up with your flaming tardery tell you to fuck off to /pol/
>NICE ARGUMENT.
fuck off to /pol/
>>683375
>neglect the entire part of my post where I point out your strawman
>focus entirely on me calling you out for being a racist /pol/ack fucktard for transparently blaming "diversity" for racist violence
>>683379
hi reddt
>>683386
I'm not even the guy you originally responded to. Just pointing out that whining about the /pol/ boogeyman is counterproductive.
>>683364
Fining an american company in france 500,000 euros plus 20k more per day for publishing documents in English is authoritarian, even if you think it's for a good reason. Protectionism in general is authoritarian.
>>683394
wait for it
>nice argument
>>683364
>How DARE you use loandwords!
>Don't you le know that languages never change!
>>683396
Yeah, just neglect the actual logical fallacy he made which I pointed out and focus on how much of a victim he is for being called out on his racist bullshit. I don't take notes on rheotircal productivity from blatant dickweeds like you.
>>683396
People aren't whining about /pol/ because /pol/ is le scary boogeyman that hurts muh feels. It's just that the same old /pol/ talking points get really stale. The board isn't even half a year old and it's already possible to predict exactly how certain topics and threads will turn out. Don't they ever get tired of circlejerking about 'subhumans' and 'mudslimes'? It's just lame.
>>683293
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha
>When at the mid-19th century, primary school is made compulsory all across the State, it is also made clear that only French will be taught, and the teachers will severely punish any pupil speaking in patois. The aim of the French educational system will consequently not be to dignify the pupils' natural humanity, developing their culture and teaching them to write their language, but rather to humiliate them and morally degrade them for the simple fact of being what tradition and their nature made them. The self-proclaimed country of the "Human rights" will then ignore one of man's most fundamental rights, the right to be himself and speak the language of his nation. And with that attitude France, the "grande France" that calls itself the champion of liberty, will pass the 20th century, indifferent to the timid protest movements of the various linguistic communities it submitted and the literary prestige they may have given birth to.
>France [...] has the miserable honour of being the State of Europe—and probably the world — that succeeded best in the diabolical task of destroying its own ethnic and linguistic patrimony and moreover, of destroying human family bonds: many parents and children, or grandparents and grandchildren, have different languages, and the latter feel ashamed of the first because they speak a despicable patois, and no element of the grandparents' culture has been transmitted to the younger generation, as if they were born out of a completely new world. This is the French State that has just entered the 21st century, a country where stone monuments and natural landscapes are preserved and respected, but where many centuries of popular creation expressed in different tongues are on the brink of extinction. The "gloire" and the "grandeur" built on a genocide. No liberty, no equality, no fraternity: just cultural extermination, this is the real motto of the French Republic.
The thing is that modern "multiculturalism" is not really multicultural.
Multicultural nations have been the norm through history, they were destroyed only in the XIXth century, by left-leaning nationalist movements. In these nations, different peoples lived alongside each other in relative peace, with their own authorities and certain self-government, but under the same sovereignity.
Modern multiculturalism is not about that. Modern multiculturalism is Marxist dialectics applied to race relations. Since inciting the proletariat to revolt didn't work as expected, the Marxist revolutionary intellectual caste decided to find a new "revolutionary class" for it's own purposes, and while many found blacks, gays, women and radical intellectuals to be the best fit, others decided to build a intellectual discourse that divided all human races in just two: "whitey" and "Peoples of Colour", and of course the "Peoples of Colour", being the majority, become the revolutionary subject that is told that it has the right to revolt and bring communism.
That's what they call "multiculturalism" nowadays. Under this "multiculturalism", there is no English, no Croat, no Italian-Argentine, just "whites", there are no Deobandis, no Ibadis, no Sufis, just "Muslims", and of course there are no Igbos, no Swahilis, no Bamilekes, just "blacks". And of course "blacks" and "Muslims" are supposed to ally against "whites" so they can bring communism.
Pic related is atual multiculturalism.
>>683429
Thanks for that. I'm Australian and while my country is obviously very different from France, I know the aboriginals had a few hundred languages that were banned or discouraged up until the 70s when the stolen generations ended. Did countries like China never do this against non-Han ethnicites? Or the Japanese with the Ainu?
>>683456
>Modern multiculturalism is not about that. Modern multiculturalism is Marxist dialectics applied to race relations. Since inciting the proletariat to revolt didn't work as expected, the Marxist revolutionary intellectual caste decided to find a new "revolutionary class" for it's own purposes, and while many found blacks, gays, women and radical intellectuals to be the best fit, others decided to build a intellectual discourse that divided all human races in just two: "whitey" and "Peoples of Colour", and of course the "Peoples of Colour", being the majority, become the revolutionary subject that is told that it has the right to revolt and bring communism.
>That's what they call "multiculturalism" nowadays. Under this "multiculturalism", there is no English, no Croat, no Italian-Argentine, just "whites", there are no Deobandis, no Ibadis, no Sufis, just "Muslims", and of course there are no Igbos, no Swahilis, no Bamilekes, just "blacks". And of course "blacks" and "Muslims" are supposed to ally against "whites" so they can bring communism.
I thought the simplification of the world into 'white' and 'colored' was a product of American segregationalism.
>>683483
White people mostly shed their national identities when they emigrated to the New World. Kinda like a European diaspora. Africa had a lot of genetically and culturally distinct people, but naturally I doubt whites gave a shit and their differences were erased by slavery anyway. I think only something like 50% of African Americans are sub-saharan. Naturally said poster is a conspiracy theorist spouting cultural marxist crap to make modern attempts at tolerance and mutual respect seem like insidious plots to destroy him, the real victim.
I wouldn't call it a "multicultural society" but the Mongol armies were very diverse especially after Genghis was dead and the Empire was divided. In the siege of Baghdad by Hulagu Khan, more than half his forces were Georgian and Armenian along with Chinese, Turks and Persians.
>>683353
>completely failing to make an argument
>muh pol
Typical shit
You want multiculturalism? Try India/Pakistan. Does that strike you as a humanitarian success?
There are no inherent benefits to diversity. It has to serve a purpose, or be the outcome of a selection process based on merit.
>>683525
Empires love multiculturalism.
>>683525
There you go, arguing against the 'multiculturalism is good for its own sake' strawman that literally no-one in the thread has brought up except you.
Honestly, people aren't telling you to go back to /pol/ as an insult, it's just that your level of argumentation (that of a brainded monkey) would be more at home there.
>>683525
>You want multiculturalism? Try India/Pakistan. Does that strike you as a humanitarian success?
Does North Korea strike you as a monoracial success? Do you realize from that example how fucking stupid it is to relegate the entire state of India and Pakistan as being due to multiculturalism?
I didn't "fail to make an argument", I pointed out your attempt at victim reversal by blaming conflicts on the presence of persecuted minorities, and you responded with a bunch of made up shit that nobody said except you. You're not talking about history, you're using this thread to indirectly whine about modern multiculturalism you dislike. It's /pol/ discussion plain and simple.
>>683542
>It's not really the same kind of multiculturalism though is it?
When Empires did it, it was to keep a minority culture in power. They also used ethnic cleansing and forced population movements to create the situations that would allow them to remain in power. Empires love it.
Today it's used as a political football by two sides of a political divide (as minor as it is intractable) within a single culture (American culture is REALLY homogeneous). The multi part of modern multiculturalism is just the wide diversity of backgrounds among tiny minorities, most of whom are just straight up American in culture.
According to the story attatched to the photo, both are RAF gunners resting before a night flight, both are going to be KIA
>>683563
This isn't true in Europe though, in which you have a wide diversity of backgrounds among minorities, a great number of whom retain their original culture or adopt one which is in direct conflict with the mainstream native one.
>>683595
That's really up to the assimilating culture, the emigres don't have much say in how easily they'll be permitted to assimilate.
Put them in secular schools with the other kids, and everything will be fine.
If you tell them they're only living there provisionally, they're outsiders, then they'll listen to you, they are living in your society.
>>683628
Spoken like someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
>>683555
Are you seriously insinuating that ethnic and cultural strife is not the chief reason why India and Pakistan barely cohere as a society? The Kashmir conflict is not just a territory dispute.
Take the United States. Here you have a very diverse society with relentless class and ethnic conflicts. Racial relations are deteriorating. Affirmative action has made these conflicts even more bitter than before.
Show me one intrinsic, ipso facto benefit of multiculturalism. There are none. It is always a question of WHICH cultures are being brought together. Jews and Arabs live together in Israel/Palestine. One side engages in ethnic cleansing, the other in violent reprisals. That is an example of two cultures bringing nothing to the table; as a result, they can bring forth nothing constructive.
>>683310
Occitan, Basque, German, Breton tongues, and of course French. And other shit that I don't know.
>>683327
>lasted 900 years
>not successful
ITT: stupid liberals get angry their great social engineering experiment is a colossal failure
Good thing it will only cost us about half the world's functioning societies
>>683456
I don't think this is what actual modern Marxist theorists actually believe. It's what a lot of people think they believe, sure.
>>683682
>Take the United States. Here you have a very diverse society with relentless class and ethnic conflicts. Racial relations are deteriorating. Affirmative action has made these conflicts even more bitter than before.
Diverse racially, sort of, but not diverse culturally.
You have a quarter billion people who have basically the same culture. Maybe China has more people in one country who share the same culture, but America is unique in the proportion of it's population that have the same culture.
>>683697
I heard people say the Ottoman and Roman Empires failed because of multiculturalism.
Funny shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ESlS2jrhXY
http://www.tsowell.com/spmultic.html
Obligatory
Practically all empires of history.
Multiculturalism isn't a problem. The problem is the ideology of victimization promoted by progressivism.
>>683771
You have to admit that the problem you describe makes it harder to solve actual systemic victimization... yes?
No victimization, no problem.
>>683682
>Show me one intrinsic, ipso facto benefit of multiculturalism.
more culinary variety
Multi-cultural societies before ~1970-80 always had clear hierarchies with ONE culture being directly in charge and others being subjugated, it's really not comparable to modern multicultural societies.
>>683816
That is.... exactly what it's like in modern multicultural societies.
The difference is that before ~1970, most multicultural societies were ruled by a minority culture being directly in charge, and the others being subjugated.
Now it's majority cultures with diverse minorities, who don't have too much in common, they all have more in common with the dominant culture.
>>683806
>more gastric disorders
no thanks m8, I want a normal life expectancy
>>683844
>Now it's majority cultures with diverse minorities, who don't have too much in common, they all have more in common with the dominant culture.
Please elaborate
>>683962
West Indian Christian immigrants to the UK are basically mainstream British culture now, and the same is true of Muslim and Hindu immigrants from the same time. They didn't become more like each other, they all became more like the dominant culture.
>>683248
What a terrible question.
Every society that can claim to be multicultural has always had a primary culture group that dominated the power structure.
There is no true cosmopolitan nation as of yet, the closest you can claim is the UK and they still have a primary culture group.
>>683844
A lot of immigrants in the US sure seem to have adopted big elements of the native minority (black) culture.
>>684142
>What would the glue holding this nation together be?
I suppose this would depend on any amount of foreign crisis, domestic turmoil, hegemonic indoctrination, etc.
In the example of the UK, I'd say its simply English hegemonic because of the long reach of the Victorian era.
India is successful multicultural democracy.
>>684160
No I meant in this truely cosmopolitan nation, in which there is no primary culture that holds everyone together. There's no incentive to stay together in one nation at that point, since there are no shared values and traditions. Ironically this is a phenomenon already very observable in the UK's bigger cities.
>>684182
Thats horse shit, everyone in India understands that the cultural groups in the North have much more control over the national government than the Southern groups.
In fact, its one of the most heated topics in Indian domestic policy, and has been since the independence.
>>684185
The only incentive I can see for true cosmopolitanism is a confederation of nations as equals, like the Danubian Confederation bullshit that Austria-Hungary was looking into.
Even then, once such a confederation is put into place they run into the population vs representation debates which are inherently divisive.
The US had such debates at one time, inventing the bicameral house shit. So maybe it would've worked had they been given more time.
On a side note, I only thing a true cosmopolitan nation could exist if the borders of that nation encompassed the historical boundaries of its people.
Yugoslavia and Austria-Hungary for example, but the issue with these examples are that although they had many nationalities under their flag, they were quite separate and autonomous of each other.
Maybe that is a necessity?
>>684227
Exactly. But that's a completely different idea from what is being pushed as multiculturalism nowadays.
>>684249
You're right, but I can't speak for them
>>683456
You're a lying sack of shit, you right-wing nutjob. It wasn't Marxists who divided people into whites and PoC. A quick look at the Wikipedia would confirm your bullshit. Yeah, just ignore the devolution of the British Union, with all those regional political and cultural autonomy, right? Kill yourself.
>m-muh Cultural Marxism
>>683692
Corsa too
>>684227
The truth is that the state is upheld with soft power and hard power. Whether it fails or not depend on those two.
Why are people still clinging to stupid concepts derived from stupid le primordialist 'we wuz one pepul and shiet' ala 18th-19th century anyway? Both monoculturalism and multiculturalism?
>>684304
I've thought a little on it, and it obviously stems from tribalism.
However, I wouldn't say its stupid. It holds a lot of influence over people, and although it could be a primitive thought it still holds merit for changing the destiny of millions, or even billions of people.
Maybe nationalism and ethnic revisionism are the last attempts of tribalism to invade our modern societies, or they are the very foundations of modern societies themselves.
Regardless, I hold nationalism in the same respect as religion. They're just a nexus of values that are instruments in reflecting the ambition or earnest devotion of their followers.
Pic related: Its a value shared in most religions and nationalists.
>>683682
India is third world because of overpopulation, illiteracy, shitty economic reforms, the legacy of colonialism and a local culture of rampant nepotism, among many other factors. Boiling it all down to multiculturalism is just self-serving racist bullshit.
>Take the United States. Here you have a very diverse society with relentless class and ethnic conflicts. Racial relations are deteriorating. Affirmative action has made these conflicts even more bitter than before.
Yeah, because black people weren't getting lynched before affirmative action came along. Like complaining about mistreatment is worse than actual fucking mistreatment. If you label the dominance of whites over minorities as "order" then you can dismiss anyone who complains about racism as rabble-rousers who bring it upon themselves for threatening the status quo you desire.
>Show me one intrinsic, ipso facto benefit of multiculturalism.
You're the only one saying this shit, dickhead. If anyone is begging the question, it's you. Like that Stormfag copypasta that says "Everyone says there is a RACE problem" despite nobody saying this except stormfags.
What's funny about your repetitive bullshit is that by saying multiculturalism "brings nothing to the table" you can portray it as a malevolent force that has to be "brought" upon the "natural" order of monoculturalism you wank over, instead of a simple result of different groups of people existing on the same, planet coming into contact with each other, and wanting basic dignity. Those concessions of simple human rights are just the biggest tantrum triggers to racist bitches like you. As if the Israelis and Palestinians having separate borders has stopped conflict between them. As if Europeans being on the other side of the fucking world away from Native Americans and Australians was enough to stop racial violence.
>>683264
most big cities by the ocean, tooby truthful.
>>683283
>tfw you will never live in Hellenistic Greece
Best time period.
>>684449
Hellenistic Middle East is where it's at
>>683248
Persia, or the mongols
>>684350
India is third world because it is a country that is run by identity-driven politics. Muslims vote for one party. Dalits vote for one party. Sikhs vote for one party. Not to mention, India was run by socialism for its 45 years (and is still very much based on socialism). So basically you had a shitton of wealth being stolen by the governments every year and then redistributed based on vote-bank politics. Not surprisingly, the people that have gotten ahead in India have done so WITHOUT government help and India's true economic progress began with Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's economic reforms which dramatically privatized the economy, allowed for more FDI, and destroyed some of the worst parts of socialism (although much was still left over and still exists even today).
Please, as an Indian, I beg of you: if you're going to talk about my country, at least educate yourself on the HISTORY, the ECONOMICS, and the CULTURE before you espouse nonsense like India is third world because of "overpopulation, illiteracy, shitty economic reforms, the legacy of colonialism and a local culture of rampant nepotism". Overpopulation is an absolutely made up problem. Read Malthus and his predictions and then read the leftist nonsense today about the "perils of overpopulation". Not a single one of Malthus' predictions came true. Why? Because human beings have creative minds that have consistently found ways to accommodate new demand.
I hate when people say that "colonialism" is the reason India is not raring on all levels. Absolutely idiotic. It's been 70 years since the British left India. The problem? One power (Britain) was replaced by another power (Gandhi-Nehruvian socialism).
The local culture of rampant nepotism is quite a generalization to throw at 1.2 billion people. I'm from a village. Local governments are the only governments that work here. State governments are useless, and don't even get me started on the national governments.
>>684643
Libtard blown the fuck out
>>683248
Successful societies become multicultural. They attract or conquer people from over the place.
The problem with the question is that it largely comes down to a chicken-egg type deal.
A better way to phrase the question is -- what are societies who became successful after they were already multicultural.
>>684350
India is third world because it is a country that is run by identity-driven politics. Muslims vote for one party. Dalits vote for one party. Sikhs vote for one party. Not to mention, India was run by socialism for its 45 years (and is still very much based on socialism). So basically you had a shitton of wealth being stolen by the governments every year and then redistributed based on vote-bank politics. Not surprisingly, the people that have gotten ahead in India have done so WITHOUT government help and India's true economic progress began with Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's economic reforms which dramatically privatized the economy, allowed for more FDI, and destroyed some of the worst parts of socialism (although much was still left over and still exists even today).
Please, as an Indian, I beg of you: if you're going to talk about my country, at least educate yourself on the HISTORY, the ECONOMICS, and the CULTURE before you espouse nonsense like India is third world because of "overpopulation, illiteracy, shitty economic reforms, the legacy of colonialism and a local culture of rampant nepotism". Overpopulation is an absolutely made up problem. Read Malthus and his predictions and then read the leftist nonsense today about the "perils of overpopulation". Not a single one of Malthus' predictions came true. Why? Because human beings have creative minds that have consistently found ways to accommodate new demand.
I hate when people say that "colonialism" is the reason India is not raring on all levels. Absolutely idiotic. It's been 70 years since the British left India. The problem? One power (Britain) was replaced by another power (Gandhi-Nehruvian socialism).
The local culture of rampant nepotism is quite a generalization to throw at 1.2 billion people. I'm from a village. Local governments are the only governments that work here. State governments are useless, and don't even get me started on the national governments.
>>683248
It's one of the defining features of a territorial empire. Not just conquest, but also deliberate relocation of subject people has been extremely common. If you define success by being the center of an at least regional hegemony, every success story was multicultural in some capacity.
For that matter, it's also really common in trade hubs for different reasons. Rich coastal cities and some inland trade routes do very well for themselves. And they get foot traffic from all over. So if you're counting wealth as success, you're likely to get some multiculturalism along with your success.
Diversity is usually a symptom of a successful state, but states do what they can to stamp out diversity or use it to divide and rule depending on what's convenient at the moment. Often this is worse in territorial states than in states central to a trade network. At least as far as I can tell.
