Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you think that most European countries have been homogeneous throughout history, you are off your rocker.
You added "throughout" to what I said. Of course not throughout. Goths, Gauls, Germanic tribes, Picts, Celts Saxons all blended together to form the Euro ethnicities that we know now. I should have said recent history, i.e. last 500 yrs or so.
You added "throughout" to what I said. Of course not throughout. Goths, Gauls, Germanic tribes, Picts, Celts Saxons all blended together to form the Euro ethnicities that we know now. I should have said recent history, i.e. last 500 yrs or so.
Europe is not homogeneously-blended. Just because most people are "white" doesn't mean there is ethnic or cultural homogeneity.
Albania, ethnically homogeneous and it's one of poorest countries in Europe. Yemen is a homogeneous country. It is the poorest country in the Middle East. Yemen is ravaged right now. The capital had to move from Sana'a to Aden because of the violence. Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, is ethnically homogeneous. 58% of Haiti's population suffers from some form of malnutrition. Centuries of political upheaval, dictatorship, and severe poverty. Paraguay is ethnically homogeneous. Oddly enough, some of its ethnic minorities are doing better than the average Paraguayan. This is a country where there has been many years of upheaval and violence. It's peaceful now, but it's one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere.
And yet I've given you many counter examples and can provide more. Don't you people get it? These factors are orthogonal. You're searching for causality where there is none. I don't know where a number of you get the idea that I said anything linking national success to ethnic homogeneity. Perhaps you have canned "Homogenity is bad. Diversity is good." speeches you're just dying to soapbox.
And yet I've given you many counter examples and can provide more. Don't you people get it? These factors are orthogonal. You're searching for causality where there is none. I don't know where a number of you get the idea that I said anything linking national success to ethnic homogeneity. Perhaps you have canned "Homogenity is bad. Diversity is good." speeches you're just dying to soapbox.
I wasn't searching for causality. I was showing you that there are homogeneous nations that are doing quite badly. I was proving the opposite to what the OP wanted to prove. If a country works best when it's homogeneous, then why are Paraguay, Albania, Haiti, and North Korea doing so badly?
And I said nothing about diversity either. The problem is I came up with some examples to prove you wrong, and you can't handle it.
Europe is not homogeneously-blended. Just because most people are "white" doesn't mean there is ethnic or cultural homogeneity.
Good God. Can nobody on this board read straight? That is EXACTLY what I've been saying. I don't care what color they are ... that doesn't define ethnicity and European countries DO have distinct ethnicities. Are we in violent agreement on that?
Your statement is just flat wrong. 200 yrs ago those countries had more distinct national ethnicities than they do now. Its the global migrations of the modern era of mobility that have brought various smaller ethnic groups together.
No they didnt. Germany didnt even exist back then. Germany is made up of lots and lots of different states. Look up the constant struggle to assimilate various ethnic groups in what is now known as France. Same with Spain.
Of course I realize it's to late to do anything about it now, and of course diversity is promoted as the best thing since Jesus Christ, but honestly, if all countries were homogeneous wouldn't the end result being a more peaceful world? Like it or not, humans are inherently tribalist, it is in our DNA and always has been and always will be. The more differences there are between people the more conflict. If you look at the world, no matter where it may be, the more races/religions/languages/cultures there are ends up disproportionately relating to just how peaceful/united people are.
You look at something like Japan where, it's about as homogeneous as can be. Can you not say it being one of the most crime-free, healthiest, and overall most successful countries has nothing to do with it? Look at Europe, the more diverse it has become the worse it has gotten. As far as the U.S is concerned, I know people will respond with "But the U.S has always been a nation of immigrants", true, but of the European kind. Which, while technically diverse, is far different than those otherwise. When the founding fathers created this nation do you think they honestly thought by immigrants it would be hundreds of thousands/millions from Africa, Middle East, Asia etc.? And for those that would say they love diversity, well, if you really feel like you need it, isn't that what planes and boats are for? Instead of importing different people into your country wouldn't it make more sense to go to others yourself?
Sure I'll get lots of flack for this but if we look deep-down on our nature as humans isn't it the truth?
Except when you have racial purity, than they next thing they go after, if religion, sexual orientation, the disabled, and so on and so on.
Besides you picking a single country as a data point about a trend is bad statistics. Canada is much more diverse than even the US, ethnically, lingually and in terms of religion. They are much safer than countries like the US in terms of violent crime despite being more diverse.
And just for the record, diversity is here, what would you propose, strip citizenship from anyone who is not white and christian? And maybe it is in your nature, but it isn't in mine.
Good God. Can nobody on this board read straight? That is EXACTLY what I've been saying. I don't care what color they are ... that doesn't define ethnicity and European countries DO have distinct ethnicities. Are we in violent agreement on that?
I can clearly read - which is why I responded. I'm not sure why you would have wrote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wee-Bey
95% eh? Prove that. Ethnically homogenous European countries such as Germany, France, Britain and Spain have historically been extremely successful.
If you also believe the post I'm replying to here.
I see no violent (dis?)agreement here.
I also agree that ethnic homogeneity/heterogeneity is not necesarilly a predictor of sucess.
This is a conservative argument without merit because it's based on a false premise: that you can keep humans neatly segregated in separate geographic spaces in a world that has grown increasingly small as technology grows at an exponential clip.
This is akin to trying to roll the clock back on humanity; it just doesn't work. You can make some smarter policies to control societal integration better, but you can't build a wall around your nations and live as if it was 1582.
And even then, people found plenty of ways to divide themselves, and hence plenty of reasons to kill each other. Even back then, societies were not as homogeneous as you think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
