Is Diversity and Multiculturalism a Good or Bad Thing?

[Kubumba Tribe]

Also, the reason there is high racial differences in the US is because of old racist policies that were in place for a very long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_d ... ted_States)

[Kubumba Tribe]

There are already entire countries where this has happened:
Haiti
South Africa
Zimbabwe
Jamaica
Trinidad
Belize
Brazil

And the 500 page milestone is reached! Brazil is multicultural.

WOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP

[San Lumen]

Also, the reason there is high racial differences in the US is because of old racist policies that were in place for a very long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_d ... ted_States)

And that article doesnt seem to mention the fact that suburbs were founded on racism. Should I start part 2?

[Benuty]

So celebration before the hammer of the mods shatters this threads connection to reality?

[Korvale]

There are already entire countries where this has happened:
Haiti
South Africa
Zimbabwe
Jamaica
Trinidad
Belize
Brazil

And the 500 page milestone is reached! Brazil is multicultural.

Brazil is a black country the majority of its inhabitants are mostly african in DNA thats why they look so different from the actual native countries in South America like Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and I think Guyana. Actual native Brazilians are rare in their home territory thanks to the Portuguese though you can find some wild Brazilian tribes in the Amazon jungle.

[San Lumen]

So celebration before the hammer of the mods shatters this threads connection to reality?

It is a glorious moment that this thread has reached this point. I never imagined it would when i first started it. Speaking of which should i post the second incarnation?

[Kubumba Tribe]

Also, the reason there is high racial differences in the US is because of old racist policies that were in place for a very long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_d ... ted_States)

And that article doesnt seem to mention the fact that suburbs were founded on racism. Should I start part 2?

Yes!

So celebration before the hammer of the mods shatters this threads connection to reality?

[Keuliseu]

And the 500 page milestone is reached! Brazil is multicultural.

Brazil is a black country the majority of its inhabitants are mostly african in DNA thats why they look so different from the actual native countries in South America like Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and I think Guyana. Actual native Brazilians are rare in their home territory thanks to the Portuguese though you can find some wild Brazilian tribes in the Amazon jungle.

Brazil;
White 47.73% Black 7.61% Asian 1.09% Pardo (Multiracial) 43.13% American Indians 0.43%

[Benuty]

And that article doesnt seem to mention the fact that suburbs were founded on racism. Should I start part 2?

Yes!

So celebration before the hammer of the mods shatters this threads connection to reality?

In summary, before the mods lock the thread down, and no one is able to post in it.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Brazil is a black country

False: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... l_2006.png

[Korvale]

Brazil is a black country the majority of its inhabitants are mostly african in DNA thats why they look so different from the actual native countries in South America like Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and I think Guyana. Actual native Brazilians are rare in their home territory thanks to the Portuguese though you can find some wild Brazilian tribes in the Amazon jungle.

Brazil;
White 47.73% Black 7.61% Asian 1.09% Pardo (Multiracial) 43.13% American Indians 0.43%

Pardos are mostly african, pure blacks in Brazil are a minority but it stills a black country. Even the modern culture of Brazil is black african derived.

[San Lumen]

Volume 2 has been posted. In anyone has any ideas for the subtitle let me know.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Brazil;
White 47.73% Black 7.61% Asian 1.09% Pardo (Multiracial) 43.13% American Indians 0.43%

Pardos are mostly african, pure blacks in Brazil are a minority but it stills a black country. Even the modern culture of Brazil is black african derived.

It's also derived from European and Indigenous cultures.
Also, Pardos are mixed, not just African descended

[Korvale]

Pardos are mostly african, pure blacks in Brazil are a minority but it stills a black country. Even the modern culture of Brazil is black african derived.

It's also derived from European and Indigenous cultures.
Also, Pardos are mixed, not just African descended

In essence its a black country as they the pardo side more with their black minority than the white minority

[Wedonland]

Wow. We have a very lovely 500 pages of posts in this single thread, out of all possible issues to discuss.

Personal opinion: The historically dominant majority in western countries (ethnic white Europeans) were and are still being effectively undercut and displaced by other minorities because of many different factors, one of these are affirmative government policies exclusive to minorities. It's nearly a form of government subsidizing. Now, why can't the "old historical" white Europeans get the same propped up treatment?

[Free Arctic Territories]

It's also derived from European and Indigenous cultures.
Also, Pardos are mixed, not just African descended

In essence its a black country as they the pardo side more with their black minority than the white minority

Pardos have their own unique syncretized culture. You're saying that Meztisos would "side" with the Native Americans or a Chinese-European mix would "side" with white people based on their skin color. Unfortunately, Mexico is not a native american country, and half-European Asians would not be European. I doubt that "black" or African countries (it's hard to tell what the hell is one) would be completely Catholic and speak only Portuguese.

[San Lumen]

In essence its a black country as they the pardo side more with their black minority than the white minority

Pardos have their own unique syncretized culture. You're saying that Meztisos would "side" with the Native Americans or a Chinese-European mix would "side" with white people based on their skin color. Unfortunately, Mexico is not a native american country, and half-European Asians would not be European. I doubt that "black" or African countries (it's hard to tell what the hell is one) would be completely Catholic and speak only Portuguese.

True. Its time to bring this discussion to volume 2

[Den Sosialistiske Republikk Norden]

I think I made a similar point like this on this thread on another account but let me reiterate, as my post was just a one-liner with an extremely vague assertion.

The problem with immigration in Europe and North America isn't "Multiculturalism". Sweden and Germany aren't "multicultural" states, and to suggest so is laughable, no matter how much their governments claim to be multicultural. They're nationstates. Germany is a state by and for the German ethnic group, as is Sweden for the Swedish, Britain for the British, Ukraine for the Ukrainians, etc. Nationstates by their nature are monocultural. Again, they're built by a particular ethnic group for a particular ethnic group. The Italian nationstate was never built with Middle Easterners or Africans in mind. Thus, whoever lives there and is not the main ethnic group of the nationstate is not a respected citizen of the state, but a "minority". An alien. A second class citizen. Their deviation from the nationstates monocultural status quo is reluctantly tolerated at best and violently resisted by the nationstates titular ethnic group at worst.

Nationstates have always sought to build a homogneous, moocultural society that can be harmonious to the nationstates inherently exclusive nature. When there wasn't any Turks, Pakistanis and Africans in Germany for the dominant German ethnicity to whine over, there were plenty of Poles and Jews. but unlike, Turks, Pakistanis and Africans, Poles and Jews have lived in what is now Germany for centuries. But that didn't appear to matter to German nationalists. They're not the German ethnic group. Thus, they're a deviation from the German nationstate, and must be dismantled in some form or another, despite being indigenous to "Germany". And that's the most devious part of the nationstate; It's all artificial. Nations don't exist. Bavarians have more in common with Austrians than they do Lower Saxons. The Kajkavian dialect spoken in north Croatia is closer to Slovenian than the Croatian spoken in Zagreb and Split. In the 19th century, only 49% of the population of France spoke French. The ethnic groups of southern India aren't even in the same ethnolinguistic group as Indians from north India.

What we see as nationstates are artificial constructs born of social engineering campaigns and genocide. What we see as "Italian" is in fact Venezian, which was promoted by Italian nationalists as the superior language to other lesser languages of Italy. As I said before, 50% of people in France didn't speak French in the 19th century. This was changed with the systematic extinction of languages such as Occitan by the French government. All of these neat borders we have in Europe, a neatly monolithic Czechia, a neatly monolithic Poland, a neatly monolithic Slovakia, etc. That was all caused by the massive ethnic cleansing campaigns post-WWII, forcing Germans out of Poland, Italians out of Yugoslavia, Poles out of Ukraine, and so on, as to help create near-perfect homogeneous societies for the nationstate to operate in.

And for a good while, it worked for the most part. But humans, as you should know through history, are not much of the sedentary type. And now waves upon waves of peoples from east and south are completely unraveling the decades of work put into our European nationstates. Some want to resist this unraveling. But there's also many who want the nationstate to somehow accommodate these weary travelers out of some sense of empathy. This empathy though certainly commendable is muted however by the heavy influence the concept of the nationstate has had on our society. We cannot hope to so much as think of the possibility of a state that isn't a nationstate. And because of that, we don't bother to realize that truly accommodating refugees and immigrants within our nationstates is impossible. "Multiculturalism" within the frameworks of the European nationstate is an oxymoron, and any attempts at harmonization between the two concepts will end in nothing but absolute failure. Thus, we can't argue that "Multiculturalism" is bad by showing heavy violence exhibited by our nationstates minority groups. Those ethnic groups are aliens in an oppressive state built with the intent of excluding them, their family and their culture from truly being respected members of society. You can't possibly expect model behavior from minorities under this system. But instead of seeing that as an inherent flaw in the system, we turn to reactionaries and nationalists who will tell us what we want to hear, that the nationstates is a Good Thing, Actually. It's just those pesky nonwhites who are the problem.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I think I made a similar point like this on this thread on another account but let me reiterate, as my post was just a one-liner with an extremely vague assertion.

The problem with immigration in Europe and North America isn't "Multiculturalism". Sweden and Germany aren't "multicultural" states, and to suggest so is laughable, no matter how much their governments claim to be multicultural. They're nationstates. Germany is a state by and for the German ethnic group, as is Sweden for the Swedish, Britain for the British, Ukraine for the Ukrainians, etc. Nationstates by their nature are monocultural. Again, they're built by a particular ethnic group for a particular ethnic group. The Italian nationstate was never built with Middle Easterners or Africans in mind. Thus, whoever lives there and is not the main ethnic group of the nationstate is not a respected citizen of the state, but a "minority". An alien. A second class citizen. Their deviation from the nationstates monocultural status quo is reluctantly tolerated at best and violently resisted by the nationstates titular ethnic group at worst.

Nationstates have always sought to build a homogneous, moocultural society that can be harmonious to the nationstates inherently exclusive nature. When there wasn't any Turks, Pakistanis and Africans in Germany for the dominant German ethnicity to whine over, there were plenty of Poles and Jews. but unlike, Turks, Pakistanis and Africans, Poles and Jews have lived in what is now Germany for centuries. But that didn't appear to matter to German nationalists. They're not the German ethnic group. Thus, they're a deviation from the German nationstate, and must be dismantled in some form or another, despite being indigenous to "Germany". And that's the most devious part of the nationstate; It's all artificial. Nations don't exist. Bavarians have more in common with Austrians than they do Lower Saxons. The Kajkavian dialect spoken in north Croatia is closer to Slovenian than the Croatian spoken in Zagreb and Split. In the 19th century, only 49% of the population of France spoke French. The ethnic groups of southern India aren't even in the same ethnolinguistic group as Indians from north India.

What we see as nationstates are artificial constructs born of social engineering campaigns and genocide. What we see as "Italian" is in fact Venezian, which was promoted by Italian nationalists as the superior language to other lesser languages of Italy. As I said before, 50% of people in France didn't speak French in the 19th century. This was changed with the systematic extinction of languages such as Occitan by the French government. All of these neat borders we have in Europe, a neatly monolithic Czechia, a neatly monolithic Poland, a neatly monolithic Slovakia, etc. That was all caused by the massive ethnic cleansing campaigns post-WWII, forcing Germans out of Poland, Italians out of Yugoslavia, Poles out of Ukraine, and so on, as to help create near-perfect homogeneous societies for the nationstate to operate in.

And for a good while, it worked for the most part. But humans, as you should know through history, are not much of the sedentary type. And now waves upon waves of peoples from east and south are completely unraveling the decades of work put into our European nationstates. Some want to resist this unraveling. But there's also many who want the nationstate to somehow accommodate these weary travelers out of some sense of empathy. This empathy though certainly commendable is muted however by the heavy influence the concept of the nationstate has had on our society. We cannot hope to so much as think of the possibility of a state that isn't a nationstate. And because of that, we don't bother to realize that truly accommodating refugees and immigrants within our nationstates is impossible. "Multiculturalism" within the frameworks of the European nationstate is an oxymoron, and any attempts at harmonization between the two concepts will end in nothing but absolute failure. Thus, we can't argue that "Multiculturalism" is bad by showing heavy violence exhibited by our nationstates minority groups. Those ethnic groups are aliens in an oppressive state built with the intent of excluding them, their family and their culture from truly being respected members of society. You can't possibly expect model behavior from minorities under this system. But instead of seeing that as an inherent flaw in the system, we turn to reactionaries and nationalists who will tell us what we want to hear, that the nationstates is a Good Thing, Actually. It's just those pesky nonwhites who are the problem.

Put it in this thread

[Den Sosialistiske Republikk Norden]

Ah, thanks

[Bakery Hill]

I think I made a similar point like this on this thread on another account but let me reiterate, as my post was just a one-liner with an extremely vague assertion.

The problem with immigration in Europe and North America isn't "Multiculturalism". Sweden and Germany aren't "multicultural" states, and to suggest so is laughable, no matter how much their governments claim to be multicultural. They're nationstates. Germany is a state by and for the German ethnic group, as is Sweden for the Swedish, Britain for the British, Ukraine for the Ukrainians, etc. Nationstates by their nature are monocultural. Again, they're built by a particular ethnic group for a particular ethnic group. The Italian nationstate was never built with Middle Easterners or Africans in mind. Thus, whoever lives there and is not the main ethnic group of the nationstate is not a respected citizen of the state, but a "minority". An alien. A second class citizen. Their deviation from the nationstates monocultural status quo is reluctantly tolerated at best and violently resisted by the nationstates titular ethnic group at worst.

Nationstates have always sought to build a homogneous, moocultural society that can be harmonious to the nationstates inherently exclusive nature. When there wasn't any Turks, Pakistanis and Africans in Germany for the dominant German ethnicity to whine over, there were plenty of Poles and Jews. but unlike, Turks, Pakistanis and Africans, Poles and Jews have lived in what is now Germany for centuries. But that didn't appear to matter to German nationalists. They're not the German ethnic group. Thus, they're a deviation from the German nationstate, and must be dismantled in some form or another, despite being indigenous to "Germany". And that's the most devious part of the nationstate; It's all artificial. Nations don't exist. Bavarians have more in common with Austrians than they do Lower Saxons. The Kajkavian dialect spoken in north Croatia is closer to Slovenian than the Croatian spoken in Zagreb and Split. In the 19th century, only 49% of the population of France spoke French. The ethnic groups of southern India aren't even in the same ethnolinguistic group as Indians from north India.

What we see as nationstates are artificial constructs born of social engineering campaigns and genocide. What we see as "Italian" is in fact Venezian, which was promoted by Italian nationalists as the superior language to other lesser languages of Italy. As I said before, 50% of people in France didn't speak French in the 19th century. This was changed with the systematic extinction of languages such as Occitan by the French government. All of these neat borders we have in Europe, a neatly monolithic Czechia, a neatly monolithic Poland, a neatly monolithic Slovakia, etc. That was all caused by the massive ethnic cleansing campaigns post-WWII, forcing Germans out of Poland, Italians out of Yugoslavia, Poles out of Ukraine, and so on, as to help create near-perfect homogeneous societies for the nationstate to operate in.

And for a good while, it worked for the most part. But humans, as you should know through history, are not much of the sedentary type. And now waves upon waves of peoples from east and south are completely unraveling the decades of work put into our European nationstates. Some want to resist this unraveling. But there's also many who want the nationstate to somehow accommodate these weary travelers out of some sense of empathy. This empathy though certainly commendable is muted however by the heavy influence the concept of the nationstate has had on our society. We cannot hope to so much as think of the possibility of a state that isn't a nationstate. And because of that, we don't bother to realize that truly accommodating refugees and immigrants within our nationstates is impossible. "Multiculturalism" within the frameworks of the European nationstate is an oxymoron, and any attempts at harmonization between the two concepts will end in nothing but absolute failure. Thus, we can't argue that "Multiculturalism" is bad by showing heavy violence exhibited by our nationstates minority groups. Those ethnic groups are aliens in an oppressive state built with the intent of excluding them, their family and their culture from truly being respected members of society. You can't possibly expect model behavior from minorities under this system. But instead of seeing that as an inherent flaw in the system, we turn to reactionaries and nationalists who will tell us what we want to hear, that the nationstates is a Good Thing, Actually. It's just those pesky nonwhites who are the problem.

That was a very thoughtful post, thank you for that.