Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Are there any legitimate arguments against homogeneity? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Chinese food is a result of very successful assimilation of all the now hidden ethnicities under the Han Chinese umbrella.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    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 have a different understanding of the word culture to me. Fair enough since the word is vague and often pretty nebulous. But surely you see how slight regional variation is hardly the same as people with cultures from completely different races/continents and completely different civilisational spheres.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    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.
    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. If a white country spoke like Japan does ("one race, one country, one people") they'd probably be invaded by the USA.

    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    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.
    Or Japan or South Korea? Countries with low crime, bustling economies and a high standard of living?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    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.
    Exactly. It happened slowly and organically with groups that were already similar to eachother and shared ethnic "Chinese" heritage if not "Han Chinese".

    I was only comparing Tibet to modern day Germany. My point was that western China is further away from the Chinese heartland, full of people that are more different to the Han Chinese, thus assimilation doesn't really work and there is more ethnic tension in these regions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    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.
    You are probably right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    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?
    Yeah small amounts of immigration are okay but unfortunately that is not what has been happening.

    Charles de Gaulle put it well:

    "It is very good that there are yellow French, black French, brown French. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation. But [it is good] on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are still primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion. […] Those who advocate integration have the brain of a hummingbird. […] Arabs are Arabs, the French are French. Do you think the French body politic can absorb ten million Muslims, who tomorrow will be twenty million, after tomorrow forty? If we integrated, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered French, would you prevent them to settle in France, where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-The-Two-Churches but Colombey-The-Two-Mosques"

    As for what would happen to minorities, thats not for me to decide. It's hard to say, because the problem is not with individuals but with the scale of things. I do see some kind of conflict being inevitable at some point, especially with Islam.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    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.
    The problem is not with all immigration but with the scale and form that it is in. IMO it should only be a measure as a last resort and something to be taken seriously, not a quick fix to short term problems.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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 feel the world is more interconnected though because of multiculturalism. Sure, you can visit a place, and read about it online, but I feel you have a much better understanding if your next door neighbour grew up there, and a much greater sympathy for what is happening there. I imagine most people would be less likely to go to war with a country if their neighbours had family there.

    Tbh I'm not 100% sure on the genetics argument. By training I'm a physicist and an engineer, but I know people who have studied the subject and know a lot more about it than I do who say it's a good thing, so I'll trust them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    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.
    Japan is not doing half as well as America is doing, they don't even have a tenth of the Nobel Prizes of America, so I would wager that America is doing better. Yea I agree the bigger the scale the poorer the prospects of integration, but small scale selective immigration has its benefits. Think of how many American nobel prize winners, scientists, entrepreneurs and engineers are essentially immigrants. What's wrong with bringing the best and the brightest people from the whole world to, essentially, work for you?

    Btw:
    According to the Japanese immigration centre,[1] the number of foreign residents in Japan has steadily increased, and the number of foreign residents (excluding few illegal immigrants and short-term visitors such as foreign nationals staying less than 90 days in Japan)[2] were more than 2.2 million people in 2017.[1]
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.