Turn on thread page Beta

Are there any legitimate arguments against homogeneity? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Or any good arguments in favour of multiculturalism/diversity?

    It seems to me to be obvious that a society where people share the same ethnic heritage, same culture etc, is inherently stronger and more cohesive. Look at the BLM protests in the UK recently for example - police brutality isn't even a thing in the UK, they don't even carry guns ffs, yet Blacks raised in the UK will identify with the movement purely because they are the same race. Fact is, people identify with people that are like them.

    Let's compare France with Japan - one of them has dangerous black/muslim ghettos, monthly terrorist attacks, huge racial tensions and risks its native ethnicity/culture disappearing in the next few generations - do you think anyone from Japan is thinking, "wow I want that for my country too !", yeah, no, and neither is anybody from Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Korea or ANY country that hasn't been indoctrinated with white guilt and political correctness.

    The other thing with multiculturalism is that it always comes with an attempt to deny the ethnic identity of the white majority, so it becomes not about ethnicities/cultures living side by side, but about one being denied an identity and forced to absorb the rest. This is true in Britain, Sweden, Germany - anywhere. How can a political vision based on guilt and self debasement ever be productive in in the long run? It only breeds resentment.

    The only arguments I've seen in favour of multiculturalism generally revolve around food or soppy platitudes like "diversity is our strength!". It's really just an upper middle class fetishism for non-white cultures and for helping "those poor brown people" that white liberals think of as pets.

    What are your thoughts ?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Not really no.

    Multiculturalism creates conflict, and as you said, ends up being mutated into an assault on the identity of the natives living there, particularly when liberals are in power.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    We can get all the recipes on the internet now, so go home.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    And the funny thing is, the government could have massively defused racial tensions if they stopped 3rd world immigration around the 1970's, we may have actually had that liberal utopian vision of a (slightly)diverse society free of hate.

    A moderate and sensible government would have done this, but the establishment is seemingly full of anti-white marxist extremists who seek the total erasure of anything traditionally white and Christian.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A really interesting question actually that unfortunately I think will receive a lot negative responses.

    Biologically speaking, there are good reasons to ensure a wide gene pool. For this purpose, having a society with people from all over world will mean the populous is comparatively stable and less likely to get wiped out by a certain disease for example.

    You have listed a number of problems with having a diverse and multicultural society. I would like to ask you if you think this is a necessary outcome of a multicultural society. That is, whether it is possible to have a multicultural society without such issues? Because if so, then it simply that our society has not yet developed sufficiently to deal with such problems. Are you aware of any multicultural societies that have been flourishing?

    Now, of course to promote multiculturalism I still need to present arguments for why it might be useful. It is important not to think of diversity as being good simply because it is diverse.
    One possible argument is simply a question of efficiency. Each culture will have its own benefits, and by mingling we can share ideas, (including food) by taking the best from each. Further, this diversity can add more variety and interest into one's life and as we make life choices we may be more likely to find something we like in a more diverse society. Finally, there are reasons to think that a diverse society is more likely to be accepting of new ideas, which links to the efficiency argument but can also be important morally (in theory) in terms of tolerance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BankOfPigs)
    A really interesting question actually that unfortunately I think will receive a lot negative responses.

    Biologically speaking, there are good reasons to ensure a wide gene pool. For this purpose, having a society with people from all over world will mean the populous is comparatively stable and less likely to get wiped out by a certain disease for example.
    Sorry but that's complete nonsense. European populations have enough genetic diversity and were not going to get wiped out by a disease any time soon, this isn't a movie lol.

    (Original post by BankOfPigs)
    You have listed a number of problems with having a diverse and multicultural society. I would like to ask you if you think this is a necessary outcome of a multicultural society. That is, whether it is possible to have a multicultural society without such issues? Because if so, then it simply that our society has not yet developed sufficiently to deal with such problems. Are you aware of any multicultural societies that have been flourishing?
    The only time multiculturalism seems to work even slightly is in new world nations that were founded recently and were always multiracial, places like Brazil for example. Even then, there are race problems, with a clear hierarchy that goes from light to dark. The best areas of these countries are the places with the most European ancestry - see Argentina, South Brazil and Uruguay.

    There does not seem to be any benefit of taking previously homogenous countries and letting in millions of people from the 3rd world. Especially in the form it takes in Western Europe which is to chastise the native population whilst bending over backwards for immigrants.

    (Original post by BankOfPigs)
    Now, of course to promote multiculturalism I still need to present arguments for why it might be useful. It is important not to think of diversity as being good simply because it is diverse.
    One possible argument is simply a question of efficiency. Each culture will have its own benefits, and by mingling we can share ideas, (including food) by taking the best from each. Further, this diversity can add more variety and interest into one's life and as we make life choices we may be more likely to find something we like in a more diverse society. Finally, there are reasons to think that a diverse society is more likely to be accepting of new ideas, which links to the efficiency argument but can also be important morally (in theory) in terms of tolerance.
    I don't really consider these strong arguments. How do European countries benefit from middle eastern of African culture at all? Truth is they do not. The countries these people come from are corrupt, backwards, violent and unproductive.

    Culture can be shared just fine and enough via the internet. We can use the internet to chat to people from different countries, to get recipes from different countries, we can travel if we want to see other countries etc. Immigration just makes countries lose their distinctiveness so eventually there will be no diversity at all.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Or any good arguments in favour of multiculturalism/diversity?

    It seems to me to be obvious that a society where people share the same ethnic heritage, same culture etc, is inherently stronger and more cohesive. Look at the BLM protests in the UK recently for example - police brutality isn't even a thing in the UK, they don't even carry guns ffs, yet Blacks raised in the UK will identify with the movement purely because they are the same race. Fact is, people identify with people that are like them.

    Let's compare France with Japan - one of them has dangerous black/muslim ghettos, monthly terrorist attacks, huge racial tensions and risks its native ethnicity/culture disappearing in the next few generations - do you think anyone from Japan is thinking, "wow I want that for my country too !", yeah, no, and neither is anybody from Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Korea or ANY country that hasn't been indoctrinated with white guilt and political correctness.

    The other thing with multiculturalism is that it always comes with an attempt to deny the ethnic identity of the white majority, so it becomes not about ethnicities/cultures living side by side, but about one being denied an identity and forced to absorb the rest. This is true in Britain, Sweden, Germany - anywhere. How can a political vision based on guilt and self debasement ever be productive in in the long run? It only breeds resentment.

    The only arguments I've seen in favour of multiculturalism generally revolve around food or soppy platitudes like "diversity is our strength!". It's really just an upper middle class fetishism for non-white cultures and for helping "those poor brown people" that white liberals think of as pets.

    What are your thoughts ?
    Do you think that the UK would be homogeneous and monocultural without non-white people, foreigners, etc? If so, why?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    And the funny thing is, the government could have massively defused racial tensions if they stopped 3rd world immigration around the 1970's, we may have actually had that liberal utopian vision of a (slightly)diverse society free of hate.

    A moderate and sensible government would have done this, but the establishment is seemingly full of anti-white marxist extremists who seek the total erasure of anything traditionally white and Christian.
    Imagine living in a world where right wing Tories & the Queen are considered Marxist extremists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Do you think that the UK would be homogeneous and monocultural without non-white people, foreigners, etc? If so, why?
    Because that's the definition of homogeneity. Up until the 1950's England was 99% white English. Sounds pretty homogenous to me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Because that's the definition of homogeneity. Up until the 1950's England was 99% white English. Sounds pretty homogenous to me.
    And monocultural?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    And monocultural?
    Of course. Why wouldn't it be?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Cultures will always come into contact with each other, and having a mix within a country I think promotes understanding when dealing with other countries and cultures on the international stage. Yes, there used to be more homogenous populations within countries, but there also used to be a lot more conflict between countries. And people will always find ways to segregate sections of society, if not due to race than by wealth, intelligence, gender.

    Also the disease is a fair point. No, we don't live in a movie, but a pandemic is still considered one of the most likely ways to chunk down the human population. Genetic diversity is good for survival of the human race, even if it's not from diseases but instead ability to adapt to, for example, a changing climate and potential dietary changes that may accompany that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    I don't really consider these strong arguments. How do European countries benefit from middle eastern of African culture at all? Truth is they do not. The countries these people come from are corrupt, backwards, violent and unproductive.
    Tbh this sentence makes me think it's probably not worth trying to have a reasoned discussion with you, but we'll give it a go. We benefit from their culture in the artistic sense of the word in the same way we benefit from our own culture. New, varied, stimulus will always be good for the human condition.

    As for the definition I feel you are aiming at of the customs and social behavior, lets just start with an article and go from there:

    http://listverse.com/2013/12/26/10-d...ld-advantages/
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BankOfPigs)
    A really interesting question actually that unfortunately I think will receive a lot negative responses.

    Biologically speaking, there are good reasons to ensure a wide gene pool. For this purpose, having a society with people from all over world will mean the populous is comparatively stable and less likely to get wiped out by a certain disease for example.

    You have listed a number of problems with having a diverse and multicultural society. I would like to ask you if you think this is a necessary outcome of a multicultural society. That is, whether it is possible to have a multicultural society without such issues? Because if so, then it simply that our society has not yet developed sufficiently to deal with such problems. Are you aware of any multicultural societies that have been flourishing?

    Now, of course to promote multiculturalism I still need to present arguments for why it might be useful. It is important not to think of diversity as being good simply because it is diverse.
    One possible argument is simply a question of efficiency. Each culture will have its own benefits, and by mingling we can share ideas, (including food) by taking the best from each. Further, this diversity can add more variety and interest into one's life and as we make life choices we may be more likely to find something we like in a more diverse society. Finally, there are reasons to think that a diverse society is more likely to be accepting of new ideas, which links to the efficiency argument but can also be important morally (in theory) in terms of tolerance.
    Don't mistake multiculturalism for ethnic diversity. You can have an ethnically diverse society but still have a mono-cultural one if you sufficiently enforce that cultural integration. This gets us around the obvious benefit of 'more workers with different talents' that multiculturalism loves to harp on about.

    The refusal of both the govt and society to acknowledge that cultural differences are both real, and malleable, if the source of most of the issues of multiculturalism.

    (Original post by Crassy)
    Of course. Why wouldn't it be?
    Well for a start different classes would have very different cultures. I'm sure different cities and villages did too. Fishers vs miners etc.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Chinese food is a result of very successful assimilation of all the now hidden ethnicities under the Han Chinese umbrella.
    Offline

    18
    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.
    Cultural appropriation is real.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Cultural appropriation is real.
    Don't see what's the issue as long as it's not misused. I appropriate English culture every day by speaking in English. If you use bank notes or paper in general you are appropriating Chinese culture.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Cultures will always come into contact with each other, and having a mix within a country I think promotes understanding when dealing with other countries and cultures on the international stage. Yes, there used to be more homogenous populations within countries, but there also used to be a lot more conflict between countries. And people will always find ways to segregate sections of society, if not due to race than by wealth, intelligence, gender.

    Also the disease is a fair point. No, we don't live in a movie, but a pandemic is still considered one of the most likely ways to chunk down the human population. Genetic diversity is good for survival of the human race, even if it's not from diseases but instead ability to adapt to, for example, a changing climate and potential dietary changes that may accompany that.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Tbh this sentence makes me think it's probably not worth trying to have a reasoned discussion with you, but we'll give it a go. We benefit from their culture in the artistic sense of the word in the same way we benefit from our own culture. New, varied, stimulus will always be good for the human condition.

    As for the definition I feel you are aiming at of the customs and social behavior, lets just start with an article and go from there:

    http://listverse.com/2013/12/26/10-d...ld-advantages/
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.