Is Diversity and Multiculturalism a Good or Bad Thing?

[San Lumen]

wouldn't you say there's more of that now?

I see what you mean. There are Asians and Blacks and many other backgrounds in France too.

Well we were talking about before 1800. I'm sure there may have been Asians in Blacks in France at that time, but not in great numbers.

The point, and I may have expressed it poorly, is that "French" as an identity is sort of made up. All national identities are. You take people who don't necessarily have much in common, like Celtic Bretons, Nordic Normans, Romantic Gascons, and Germanic Alsatians, and convince them them all that their actually French. And, over time, their cultures begin to blend, and they tend to adopt the most common form of national language, and the fiction you've created becomes true.

I see your point but What fiction do you mean?

[The Parkus Empire]

wouldn't you say there's more of that now?

No, I would say Medieval Britain had much more cultural diversity than contemporary Britain. I would say a second-generation Muslim from London has much more in common, culturally and linguistically, with some other random person from the UK, than two random Brits would have had in common the first millenium. Cultural and linguistic variation between areas and classes was enormous, the number of British ethnicities has been drastically consolidated over the last few hundred years.

[Neanderthaland]

Well we were talking about before 1800. I'm sure there may have been Asians in Blacks in France at that time, but not in great numbers.

The point, and I may have expressed it poorly, is that "French" as an identity is sort of made up. All national identities are. You take people who don't necessarily have much in common, like Celtic Bretons, Nordic Normans, Romantic Gascons, and Germanic Alsatians, and convince them them all that their actually French. And, over time, their cultures begin to blend, and they tend to adopt the most common form of national language, and the fiction you've created becomes true.

I see your point but What fiction do you mean?

The fiction of a "French" identity.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, because there were procurers to the modern French identity. But a lot of people have come to see themselves as "French" who historically wouldn't have. Would have identified themselves some other way. Toulousain perhaps. Or Occitan if they were feeling nationalistic.

And it could have easily gone another way. There was a time where it looked like Southern France might join up with Aragon. And then you might have a sort of Occitan-Catalonian state that eventually would have started to think of themselves as one people as well. Distinct from the French or the Spanish.

This sort of thing happens everywhere. No nation ever popped into existence with a massive, homologous population. It always takes time and effort to drag all these various groups into a single identity.

[San Lumen]

I see your point but What fiction do you mean?

The fiction of a "French" identity.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, because there were procurers to the modern French identity. But a lot of people have come to see themselves as "French" who historically wouldn't have. Would have identified themselves some other way. Toulousain perhaps. Or Occitan if they were feeling nationalistic.

And it could have easily gone another way. There was a time where it looked like Southern France might join up with Aragon. And then you might have a sort of Occitan-Catalonian state that eventually would have started to think of themselves as one people as well. Distinct from the French or the Spanish.

This sort of thing happens everywhere. No nation ever popped into existence with a massive, homologous population. It always takes time and effort to drag all these various groups into a single identity.

I can see what your saying. I never thought of it that way.

[Agland]

A terrible thing, indeed.

As a nationalist who believes in the Blood and Soil ideology, each land belongs to its native people, who lived there for many generations, not to complete foreigners, outsiders, outlanders.

Diversity is a an awful word. As we understand humans are naturally divided by many factos, we must consider that "dieversity" generates conflicts. Different people don't get along well, as many naive and childish politically correct individuals believe.

The nation must serve its own people, and, in exchange, its people must serve its beloved fatherland and be protective of it and very wary of outsiders.

Why ethnic heterogeneity is bad? I will explain:

Ethnic nepotism (Ethnic nepotism refers to an argued genetically caused preference for and altruism towards the ethnic group (or race) a person belongs to. This is argued to be caused by ethnic groups often being (or in the past often being) genetically similar. Giving support to the ethnic group/race that a person belongs to is therefore argued to increase the probability of survival of a person's genes. It can be seen as an extension of the genetically caused preference for and altruism towards relatives (kin altruism).

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Ethnic_nepotism

Ethnic heterogeneity (One cause for the problems in areas with high ethnic heterogeneity has been argued to be that when an area is no longer ethnically homogeneous then ethnic nepotism will cause the different ethnicities to try to promote their own ethnic interests and it becomes difficult to govern the whole area rationally)

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Ethnic_heterogeneity

[New haven america]

Isn't summer supposed to be over by now?

[Petrolheadia]

You know what gives even bigger mean IQ differences than race? Level of educational attainment. There is quite a lot of diffference between different levels.

[San Lumen]

A terrible thing, indeed.

As a nationalist who believes in the Blood and Soil ideology, each land belongs to its native people, who lived there for many generations, not to complete foreigners, outsiders, outlanders.

Diversity is a an awful word. As we understand humans are naturally divided by many factos, we must consider that "dieversity" generates conflicts. Different people don't get along well, as many naive and childish politically correct individuals believe.

The nation must serve its own people, and, in exchange, its people must serve its beloved fatherland and be protective of it and very wary of outsiders.

Why ethnic heterogeneity is bad? I will explain:

Ethnic nepotism (Ethnic nepotism refers to an argued genetically caused preference for and altruism towards the ethnic group (or race) a person belongs to. This is argued to be caused by ethnic groups often being (or in the past often being) genetically similar. Giving support to the ethnic group/race that a person belongs to is therefore argued to increase the probability of survival of a person's genes. It can be seen as an extension of the genetically caused preference for and altruism towards relatives (kin altruism).

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Ethnic_nepotism

Ethnic heterogeneity (One cause for the problems in areas with high ethnic heterogeneity has been argued to be that when an area is no longer ethnically homogeneous then ethnic nepotism will cause the different ethnicities to try to promote their own ethnic interests and it becomes difficult to govern the whole area rationally)

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Ethnic_heterogeneity

You know that blood and soil is a Nazi ideology? Who do you define as native people? From what you wrote is it also to be implied you don't believe in interracial marriage?

I guess we should give Canada and the United States back to the Native peoples. Visit Frankfurt, London, Los Angeles, New York or Jersey City sometime and you'll see how diversity and multiculturalism works.

[Aellex]

We think of people living in France as being "French."

But they're Cosmopolitan, and Gascon, and Occitan, and German, and Flemish, and Burgundian, and Norman, and don't even get me started on the Bretons.

They ain't, tho.

The point, and I may have expressed it poorly, is that "French" as an identity is sort of made up. All national identities are. You take people who don't necessarily have much in common, like Celtic Bretons, Nordic Normans, Romantic Gascons, and Germanic Alsatians, and convince them them all that their actually French. And, over time, their cultures begin to blend, and they tend to adopt the most common form of national language, and the fiction you've created becomes true.

Language is also made-up and so is Civilisation. What's your point?

Btw, Bretons aren't Celtic, they're closer to Gallic and Belgian; Normans never were more Nordics than Bourbonnais nor Orléanais were as the Nordic migration to the region was short and small, influencing neither the language nor the local culture; calling Gascons "Romantic" is quite a stretch they would most likely decry themselves and Alsatians always were French-Speaking with their bishopric being considered as part of the "French Nation" in the Early Middle Ages already.

Anyway, that's not what happened, tho. There was little to no blend of cultures, quite the contrary rather, and French was spoken by little to no one south of Lyon prior to the 20th century. There was no "peaceful acculturation" like what you describe. What there was was the Vergonha, a brutally effective up-rooting of the local culture, language and even nationality to replace it by the official one. Had it not happened, "Occitania", "Breizh" and "Gasconia" would still be nations within a nation within entirely different cultures and language.

[The Conez Imperium]

We think of people living in France as being "French."

But they're Cosmopolitan, and Gascon, and Occitan, and German, and Flemish, and Burgundian, and Norman, and don't even get me started on the Bretons.

They ain't, tho.

The point, and I may have expressed it poorly, is that "French" as an identity is sort of made up. All national identities are. You take people who don't necessarily have much in common, like Celtic Bretons, Nordic Normans, Romantic Gascons, and Germanic Alsatians, and convince them them all that their actually French. And, over time, their cultures begin to blend, and they tend to adopt the most common form of national language, and the fiction you've created becomes true.

Language is also made-up and so is Civilisation. What's your point?

Btw, Bretons aren't Celtic, they're closer to Gallic and Belgian; Normans never were more Nordics than Bourbonnais nor Orléanais were as the Nordic migration to the region was short and small, influencing neither the language nor the local culture; calling Gascons "Romantic" is quite a stretch they would most likely decry themselves and Alsatians always were French-Speaking with their bishopric being considered as part of the "French Nation" in the Early Middle Ages already.

Anyway, that's not what happened, tho. There was little to no blend of cultures, quite the contrary rather, and French was spoken by little to no one south of Lyon prior to the 20th century. There was no "peaceful acculturation" like what you describe. What there was was the Vergonha, a brutally effective up-rooting of the local culture, language and even nationality to replace it by the official one. Had it not happened, "Occitania", "Breizh" and "Gasconia" would still be nations within a nation within entirely different cultures and language.

From my understanding, he seems to be talking about the process. Identify is a constant process and there is really no end to that process. Subsequently, it would be silly to say that you are the pinnacle of that identity since you are at the "end" because history would prove you wrong. Unless you wish to stop the nations history books.

In ancient times what was Athens, the most powerful polis is now Greece. Greece in itself is a fabrication - the result of a long process. Imagine if you told an Athenian citizen that Sparta would be citizens along with you.

[The Conez Imperium]

As a white, I am also pretty frightened that my grandchildren are going to be murdered because of imaginary crimes they supposedly inflicted on dumber races. I'd like to avoid that.
Genetic superiority is a smart and almost certainly true idea. Is it bad to wipe out inferior races? I make no comment. But I will say that it is bad for inferior races to wipe out superior races, whether that be by actual violence or simply swamping via differential birth rates.

I don't think skin colour is a good metric to judge genetic superiority. I believe you state that race is a social reality, yet you equate it with genetics - a physical feature ???

[Albrenia]

I find it a little sad that people still believe in concepts like 'the dumber races'.

Also find it a bit odd they can say a group is 'superior' but in the same breath claim it can be eradicated by merely competing in the same space with others.

[Socialist Czechia]

Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

[San Lumen]

Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I don't think thats true.

[Tekeristan]

Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I mean, it only took the Ottomans 600 years to 'fail and break', and they controlled a good segment of the world where a good number of people probably imagine would be one of the worst to do so in.

So besides all the revolts and internal clashes even in single-ethnic states that occured over 600 year spans.. What's the definition of fail here?

[Trumptonium]

Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I mean, it only took the Ottomans 600 years to 'fail and break', and they controlled a good segment of the world where a good number of people probably imagine would be one of the worst to do so in.

They did so through Stalin-style oppression with an iron hand, so you're essentially reinforcing his point. It only broke down because of the Young Turks attempting to reform the Empire and weakening it within temporarily by doing so, allowing nationalities that are disillusioned to go off and explode their anger out of the box they've been forced to contain it in for centuries.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

As a white, I am also pretty frightened that my grandchildren are going to be murdered because of imaginary crimes they supposedly inflicted on dumber races. I'd like to avoid that.
Genetic superiority is a smart and almost certainly true idea. Is it bad to wipe out inferior races? I make no comment. But I will say that it is bad for inferior races to wipe out superior races, whether that be by actual violence or simply swamping via differential birth rates.

I don't think skin colour is a good metric to judge genetic superiority. I believe you state that race is a social reality, yet you equate it with genetics - a physical feature ???

They're not contradictory. "Green" is a social construct, but that doesn't mean that photons aren't real or that they don't vary in frequency. Most social constructs were constructed to describe or manipulate some underlying physical reality.

[Lowell Leber]

Cultures come and go, sometimes very rapidly. You can't put them in a stasis. Some cultures are detrimental in terms of values, but some are quite conducive, so it is impossible to say broadly whether diversity and multiculturalism is good or bad. Overall though I oppose discrimination against human beings based on cultural background, and I think trying to keep your "nation" pure by weeding out certain nationalities simply doesn't work.

I agree with you for the most part. When you say detrimental what do you mean? You can't keep any nation "pure" we have an interconnected planet now. You cannot stop people from immigrating.

Yes you can. Just do not let them into your country.

[The Cosmic Frankish Empire]

Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I don't think thats true.

"Think" and "believe" are two different words with two different definitions. Just a heads up.

[Sovaal]

I see your point but What fiction do you mean?

The fiction of a "French" identity.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, because there were procurers to the modern French identity. But a lot of people have come to see themselves as "French" who historically wouldn't have. Would have identified themselves some other way. Toulousain perhaps. Or Occitan if they were feeling nationalistic.

And it could have easily gone another way. There was a time where it looked like Southern France might join up with Aragon. And then you might have a sort of Occitan-Catalonian state that eventually would have started to think of themselves as one people as well. Distinct from the French or the Spanish.

This sort of thing happens everywhere. No nation ever popped into existence with a massive, homologous population. It always takes time and effort to drag all these various groups into a single identity.

Occitan separatists when?

[The Sauganash Union]

Again, multinational empires eventually failed and broke, because you can't make people tolerant to each other just like that.

It doesn't really matter if you're a totalitarian tyrant or open-minded liberal democrat ruling the state, problems with that will happen, eventually.

I don't see any middle ground here, though: either harsh assimilation approach in Stalin's style or unending appeasement and PC crusades.

I mean, it only took the Ottomans 600 years to 'fail and break', and they controlled a good segment of the world where a good number of people probably imagine would be one of the worst to do so in.

So besides all the revolts and internal clashes even in single-ethnic states that occured over 600 year spans.. What's the definition of fail here?

Is it a coincidence that the former Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empire became hotbeds of ethnic cleansing and genocide?

[The Sauganash Union]

Cultures come and go, sometimes very rapidly. You can't put them in a stasis. Some cultures are detrimental in terms of values, but some are quite conducive, so it is impossible to say broadly whether diversity and multiculturalism is good or bad. Overall though I oppose discrimination against human beings based on cultural background, and I think trying to keep your "nation" pure by weeding out certain nationalities simply doesn't work.

I agree with you for the most part. When you say detrimental what do you mean? You can't keep any nation "pure" we have an interconnected planet now. You cannot stop people from immigrating.

Yeah you can. The US used to do it pretty regularly for most of its history.

[Neanderthaland]

The fiction of a "French" identity.

I'm oversimplifying a bit, because there were procurers to the modern French identity. But a lot of people have come to see themselves as "French" who historically wouldn't have. Would have identified themselves some other way. Toulousain perhaps. Or Occitan if they were feeling nationalistic.

And it could have easily gone another way. There was a time where it looked like Southern France might join up with Aragon. And then you might have a sort of Occitan-Catalonian state that eventually would have started to think of themselves as one people as well. Distinct from the French or the Spanish.

This sort of thing happens everywhere. No nation ever popped into existence with a massive, homologous population. It always takes time and effort to drag all these various groups into a single identity.

Occitan separatists when?

Mostly during the Albigensian Crusade.

It really did look like they were going to join up with Aragon until Pedro II got himself killed.

[Aellex]

Occitan separatists when?

Never since based Jules Ferry removed them from the premises. :^)

Mostly during the Albigensian Crusade.

It really did look like they were going to join up with Aragon until Pedro II got himself killed.

Utterly unlikely. The local lords got themselves steam-rolled by the Croisade des Barons alone so they had no chance to stand up against the King's intervention (which was proven true as they got flattened again when Louis le Lion decided to join in the fun officially) if they dared to try to break free.
As for the Kings of Aragon, they were too dependent on the France's support and arbitration against Castille to make such a move.

[San Lumen]

I agree with you for the most part. When you say detrimental what do you mean? You can't keep any nation "pure" we have an interconnected planet now. You cannot stop people from immigrating.

Yes you can. Just do not let them into your country.

So you'd just close the border and not let anyone in?