Are there any legitimate arguments against homogeneity?

Chinese food is a result of very successful assimilation of all the now hidden ethnicities under the Han Chinese umbrella.

Well for a start different classes would have very different cultures. I'm sure different cities and villages did too. Fishers vs miners etc.

You're gonna have to think about why these countries opened their borders to foreigners, which btw Japan also does. For economic reasons, end of. Japan doesn't have those reasons, as they;'re a huge manufacturing company, they can survive on their own. The West needs the East in all honesty. Not necessarily the other way around. They can make their **** and give to each other.

Also the countries in East Asia they have sooo many people that it would take the exodus of an entire foreign country to fill up just half the place lol if that. So that's why the ratio looks bad but they have a lot of "gaijin" (foreign) and "hafu" (half Jap) people.

Multiculturalism doesn't happen because people are lovey dovey of foreigners. They're using them for the economy and political reasons. Homogeneous places aren't bad at all as long as they are self sufficient places.

China did assimilate different ethnicities under a shared banner I suppose, but those ethnicities had a lot more in common with eachother. In a similar way to how Germany united all the different German states, it was possible because they already had a shared and recognisable prototypical ethnic heritage.

When you go further west in China, the minority people are much less assimilated and the Chinese government has to move millions of Han into those regions in order to ensure the loyality of these regions. The Chinese government has been trying to destroy Tibetan culture in particular via forced mass immigration, it's really not that different to what is happening in Europe right now, particularly Germany and Sweden.

Wasn't it revealed in leaked documents that Tony Blair's government wanted to "rub the right's noses in diversity", or something like that? Doesn't sound econonically motivated to me. Explain to me too how Germany economically benefits from mass immigration when they have a job shortage? Bear in mind too these immigrants often get free hosing and other benefits well above those of working class/unemployed Germans.

I've always been suspicious of the economic argument, regardless money isn't everything and governments should protect their people from the interests of craven plutocrats who want to destroy their societies for profit.

Cultures have always come into contact and exchanged aspects of it, for 1000's of years.

Closing yourself off from the world isnt that great either. Unless you like countries like North Korea.

Cultures have always come into contact and exchanged aspects of it, for 1000's of years.

Closing yourself off from the world isnt that great either. Unless you like countries like North Korea.

Are you seriously comparing the Han Chinese assimilation which has been going on for at least almost 3000 years, to Syrian refugees who have just gone to Germany for a year? It takes time for people to mix, and even now Han Chinese still have different languages, different crusines, different traditions, and even different generic makeups. I'm not saying what the Chinese government doing to recognized ethnic minorities is good - they are also foolishly trying to assimilate different groups in a very short period of time.

You don't need mass immigration to not be closed from the the world. You used North Korea as one example, but what about South Korea? They are not closed from the world yet have very little immigration despite high standards of living. Japan too, is open to the world but openly wants to remain ethnically homogenous.

I'm not against diversity in some contexts. Foreign students, multinational corporations, tourism etc. I just don't see why that needs to come with open borders.

Trust me I voted Leave, I'm against mass anything. I'm just saying in addition to you, that multiculturalism isn't the kumbaya leftists pretend it is, which is the main reason I voted Leave. They couldn't give a **** about foreigners, they just want to exploit them, and the silly minorities especially who voted remain believe otherwise lol But yes the gov is all about money trust me, the whole "United" thing is for money. When you open your borders and do business with more people/countries, Business 101 says more profit. Simple as. It's nothing to do with loving diversity, sadly. And Japan isn't falling for it. They'll work with other people but no one's going to buttrape their country either. Nice. We should take a page outta their books.

People are against homogeneity normally if they're leftist economists or minorities. Both are worried that it'll lead to "isolationism" and that makes number-lovers ande mathematicians cringe when the bar graphs and pie charts change, and minorities fear they'll be left to find for themselves. Understood but the idea-shoving needs to stop. And maybe homogeneity wouldn't be a problem if the world weren't so wrought with poverty and every country could fend for itself operated by its natives solely or predominately. But nope that's not what's happening, so they're like waving the "diversity" stick.

there needs to be balance. Immigration isn't bad, as long as it's controlled to a reasonable extent. At the same time, we have people from different cultures and ethnicities living in this country. (Such as myself). I'm able to retain my cultural heritage and still integrate into British society and feel "British." What do you propose we do to these individuals?

I am not a big fan of multi-culturalism to be honest, but there is a massive difference between accepting mass immigration, which in my opinion is absolutely and terribly wrong, and recruiting the best and the brightest from around the world to fill essential positions. In both cases, we will end up with multi-culturalism, however, in the latter form it will be introduced by bright and smart people who understand their importance in society and perfectly understand their role, in the other case it will be forced on society by swathes of people, some of which might be extremists, fundamentalists and generally do not have a sense of belonging to the country as they do not have a specific role in society.

Unless you can actually link more conflict between countries directly to homogeneity then the point is asinine. I'd say there's less conflict between (western) countries now because the world is more interconnected and because of nuclear weapons and Pax Americana - so aspects of globalism perhaps contribute to world peace but not multiculturalism.

I'm not a geneticist but I don't really buy this disease argument, not only is it incredibly stretched and far fetched but I'm not sure it's even true. Different races have more immunity against different diseases, Europeans for example underwent the Plague and Africans have more immunity to tropical diseases. If you mix everyone together the could lose these unique traits so there's less global genetic distinctiveness and more likelihood of a pandemic wiping out everyone. I don't really know though, it seems like a fantastical point to begin with.

I disagree. In fact I'd argue that the human condition benefits more from being part of a strong and cohesive and organic whole with shared heritage and strong identity. Instead, in the west multiculturalism goes hand in hand with undermining the native identity - if anyone can be British/Dutch/French/Swedish etc, then no one is, because then these identities cease to mean anything substantial and instead refer to anyone that happens to have the right papers.

So you don't feel your life has benefited from new stimuli? You'd rather just always hear the same music, eat the same food and look at the same art?

I don't personally see why you feel the need to have such a strong identity.

I like Indian food but I'd be able to live without it. I get my music from the Internet and I don't care about art, if I did I don't see why we need immigration to put art in museums. I don't feel like the exchange of ideas and culture requires mass immigration to facilitate it. Tokyo, Soeul and Hong Kong are all global cities with enough diversity, different foods there are foriegn students, foriegn workers etc but none of them have the kind of huge minority populations we see in the west.

I mean it's nice to meet people from foriegn countries sometimes but I don't see how that means we have to have places like Tower Hamlets or Bradford which are 90%+ muslim/asian.

You're confusing two things, mass immigration and normal immigration. Normal immigration is important to building ties between countries, exchange of thoughts and ideas and progressing technology and science, not to mention satisfying positions where a country might need professionals.
Mass immigration is wrong because it's non-selective, simple as that.

Well, Japan seems to be progressing technology and science fine with basically no immigration. The internet facilitates information exchange incredibly well. Giving out some visas for foriegn scientists and businessmen isn't a hard thing to do.

But yeah, limited immigration is alright. It's really the scale of it that's the problem.