DT, there seems to be an assumption behind your attacks on multiculturalism that monoculturalism is better. However, just pointing out problems in multicultural societies does not show this, as monocultural societies tend to have the same problems. Where they don't have the same problems, the cure is worse than the disease.

The only thing monoculturalism really gives you is simplicity, and it does this by taking away options and experiences.

Furthermore, the larger the land mass, the more 'natural' multiculturalism is as the state of human affairs. Where people live in isolated communities (eg small islands) much of human culture is lost. While the culture that emerges may be unique from a global perspective, the people living there are not exposed to anything else (or at least, they weren't until fairly recently in history). On the other hand, the large contiguous land mass of Eruope, Asia and North Africa tended to have at least a few different cultures living nearby each other, or in the same town when towns developed. Trying to achieve the sort of stifling monoculturalism that you get in an isolated backwater on a large, vibrant community is a questionable goal at best. Furthermore, while multiculturalism can lead to social friction, attempts to get rid of multiculturalism are always far worse for a society. The closer you get to achieving this goal, the closer you get to pure evil.

Quote:

However, just pointing out problems in multicultural societies does not show this, as monocultural societies tend to have the same problems. Where they don't have the same problems, the cure is worse than the disease.

It's all well and good to claim this, freediver. But you're simply not giving me enough evidence to believe it. You just make the statement and don't back it up with examples or case studies. Instead of complaining about me 'not understanding the fact that monoculturalism societies have the same problems' and that multiculturalism is 'so much better than monoculturalism' then simply start a thread. To me, this is just an empty complaint thread.



Quote:

The only thing monoculturalism really gives you is simplicity, and it does this by taking away options and experiences.

What a heap of sh1t. Japan was at its most creative in its isolation years. It perfected its tea ceremonies during this period, as well as the art of flower arranging. As well as a number of other arts I believe. Origami, way of the samarai, honour, loyalty etc.
In fact freediver... I think monoculturalism left on its own in a lot of ways can make culture and creativity FLOURISH.

I think the statement that 'multiculturalism enhances creativity' is garbage. The reason people automatically come to this conclusion... is that people think.... "oh... now we can have calamari vegimite burgers..."    --It always comes back to food.  ::) -Stupid multiculturalists.



Quote:

Furthermore, the larger the land mass, the more 'natural' multiculturalism is as the state of human affairs. Where people live in isolated communities (eg small islands) much of human culture is lost.

As I proved above.. your statement is garbage.



Quote:

While the culture that emerges may be unique from a global perspective, the people living there are not exposed to anything else (or at least, they weren't until fairly recently in history).

So what?



Quote:

Trying to achieve the sort of stifling monoculturalism that you get in an isolated backwater on a large, vibrant community is a questionable goal at best. Furthermore, while multiculturalism can lead to social friction, attempts to get rid of multiculturalism are always far worse for a society.

Nazi Germany got rid of multiculturalism and it thrived.

The Qin dynasty conquered the area around it, unifying China for the first time, establishing common law, common writing system, and common religion. By making their country more monocultural it thrived.



Quote:

The closer you get to achieving this goal, the closer you get to pure evil.

I think you're being a tad dramatic.

It perfected its tea ceremonies during this period

Tea ceremonies, flower arrangement and folding paper? I'm sure that was an interesting time for the locals lol.

Nazi Germany got rid of multiculturalism and it thrived.  

No it didn't, it destroyed itself with it's own craziness and evil, and when the people emerged from it they were ashamed of what they had allowed happen (except for the few remaining lunatics of course). In fact, many people attribute Germany's loss to Hitler's psychotic focus on creating a monocultural state.

I think you're being a tad dramatic.

You're the one using Nazism as a 'good' example of monoculturalism.

Quote:

It perfected its tea ceremonies during this period Tea ceremonies, flower arrangement and folding paper? I'm sure that was an interesting time for the locals lol.

Moron. You're answer/insult clearly shows you have no comeback and are ignorant of history, the arts and culture.



Quote:

Nazi Germany got rid of multiculturalism and it thrived.   No it didn't, it destroyed itself with it's own craziness and evil, and when the people emerged from it they were ashamed of what they had allowed happen (except for the few remaining lunatics of course). In fact, many people attribute Germany's loss to Hitler's psychotic focus on creating a monocultural state.

God freediver, I expected more intelligence and less reliance on SBS documentaries from the likes of you. Relying on the words 'evil' and 'craziness' to back up your own bvllsh1t.

Germany was a basketcase before Hitler's rise to power. They were in serious economic debt after the great depression and after the treaty of versailles.
Nationalism allowed Germany to become a global superpower, and everyone in the nation were happy and unified under one culture. The only reason you consider it a 'failure' is because Germany just so happened to be stupid enough to declare war. Before the war, Germany was thriving. Here's a key point: MONOCULTURALISM DOES NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO WAR OR GENOCIDE.



Quote:

I think you're being a tad dramatic. You're the one using Nazism as a 'good' example of monoculturalism.

Oh diddums.  ::) Take away the whole 'Joo killing' and war and it was an extremely successful society. This is my point.

Lesson to monoculturalists in the future: Don't delare war.


Btw... I love it how you ignored half of my post.

Moron. You're answer/insult clearly shows you have no comeback and are ignorant of history, the arts and culture.

Most of what the west has produced in the last few centuries came out of multicultural societies. It's just harder to make the connection because the creativity is not assigned to a specific culture, like it is when all artists in an entire country like Japan produce pretty much the same thing (creatively of course).

Nationalism allowed Germany to become a global superpower

Wrong. Some of the econpomic policies did this. The social policies ended up crippling the country and bringing everlasting shame upon it.

and everyone in the nation were happy and unified under one culture

LOL. Everyone was happy? Only the ignorant were happy, and ignorance can't last forever.

Here's a key point: MONOCULTURALISM DOES NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO WAR OR GENOCIDE.  

True, it's the result of it, not the cause.

Take away the whole 'Joo killing' and war and it was an extremely successful society. This is my point.  

But you cannot view historical events in such isolation. The economic policies were not about monoculturalism. The holocaust was. You seem to be attributing the economic success to social policies, when in fact the social policies are what undermined the economic policies.

What i'd like is a mixture of the two. We'd have people of all races doing their own things but fundamentally they'd be AUSTRALIAN and loyal only to Australia. That would be cool.

Quote:

Most of what the west has produced in the last few centuries came out of multicultural societies.

Oh I see. So England, France, Spain and Italy were multicultural in the 19th century were they?   ::)

And everything created in this period was due to the 'richness' of multiculturalism, right?   ::)

I DARE YOU to name one thing that was created in this period that directly resulted from multiculturalism. Oh.... that's right... you can't .... because of your lame-@ss excuse...


Quote:

It's just harder to make the connection because the creativity is not assigned to a specific culture, like it is when all artists in an entire country like Japan produce pretty much the same thing (creatively of course).

Do you know what's really pathetic about this, freediver? The fact that you're droning on about how many things have directly resulted from multiculturalism yet you can't name ONE THING. ONE THING!

-I don't care about your excuse. You're excuse means nothing. What your excuse means is that your basing your assumption on NOTHING. And that you haven't researched this topic at all.



Quote:

Nationalism allowed Germany to become a global superpower Wrong. Some of the econpomic policies did this. The social policies ended up crippling the country and bringing everlasting shame upon it.

Spoking like a grade 12 history teacher.  ;D

Economic policies can only go so far without an organised community and people happily willing to do it. This is what its social policies provided.



Quote:

and everyone in the nation were happy and unified under one culture LOL. Everyone was happy? Only the ignorant were happy, and ignorance can't last forever.

Pffft. Some of the most smartest people in Germany at the time were self-proclaimed nazis. Were these people ignorant too?  ::)



Quote:

Here's a key point: MONOCULTURALISM DOES NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO WAR OR GENOCIDE.   True, it's the result of it, not the cause.

So ALL monocultural societies result in war and genocide, freediver?   ::) I hardly believe this.



Quote:

Take away the whole 'Joo killing' and war and it was an extremely successful society. This is my point.   But you cannot view historical events in such isolation. The economic policies were not about monoculturalism. The holocaust was. You seem to be attributing the economic success to social policies, when in fact the social policies are what undermined the economic policies.

I think I see where you're coming from now.. what you're saying is that the Nazis success was attribauted to only economic policies and had nothing to do with its social policies. Is that it?
Fair enough.

Did it have a negative affect on society? Before the war and joo killing, I think it resulted in many, many happy people. They worked in unity, they held get togethers and it helped families. What's wrong with that?


I think I made a mistake using Nazi Germany as an example... because their name has been forever tarnished by post-war propaganda and you'll forever argue against it becasue of all the bias docos you've seen. Why don't we talk about my China example, freediver? Or don't you know anything about that?

I think you are missing a major point DT. Multiculturalism is not something we actively seek. It is a way of living together in peace with the different groups of people that history inevitably throws together. The real argument is not about monoculturalism or multiculturalism, but whether to try to turn a multicultural society into a monocultural one, which is clearly absurd and would not be tolerated by reasonable people.

Oh I see. So England, France, Spain and Italy were multicultural in the 19th century were they?

Yes. If anything the different ethnic groups that were present then have .

And everything created in this period was due to the 'richness' of multiculturalism, right?

I didn't say that.

The fact that you're droning on about how many things have directly resulted from multiculturalism yet you can't name ONE THING.

But I'm not doing that.

Economic policies can only go so far without an organised community and people happily willing to do it.

You think the Germans were happy to go along with Nazism? They weren't. Many either went along out of fear or ignorance or were killed.

So ALL monocultural societies result in war and genocide, freediver?

You misinderstood again. You've got the causation backwards.

Did it have a negative affect on society? Before the war and joo killing, I think it resulted in many, many happy people. They worked in unity, they held get togethers and it helped families. What's wrong with that?  

Nothing. But it isn't relevant to the debate.

I think I made a mistake using Nazi Germany as an example...

LOL. Yes you did.

Why don't we talk about my China example, freediver? Or don't you know anything about that?

Did you know that minorities in China are specifically protected from the one child policy? Jared Diamond attributes Chinas fall from technological superiority to the fact that it all came under one country and lost it's diversity and itnernal competitivenes, which Europe maintained.

the majority of germans were happy with nazism pre war. Hitler did not need to use fear tactics until wartime.

although in 1932 hitler only recieved 33% of the vote, he managed over 40% in the previous election but could not form governement. Germany had so many parties that 33% is actually an excellent result, i they were the largest party from memory.

you also have to remember that for hitler to pass his "enabling act" which efffectivly made him a dictator he had to have 2/3 of the reichstag (parliament) on his side.

sounds like support to me.


The majority of Historians would say that China fell because they refused to communicate with any other culture, the building of the wall highlights this as opposed to merely only promotng a singular chinese culture.

There is a difference between monoculturalism and completly cutting off all contact with other cultures. Roman society is the best example of a monoculture continuesly communicating and steeling ideas from others, promoting further advance in technology. While throughout their history Rome kept alive the specific roman culture which barely changed over 1000 years. Their monoculture was so strong that they every nation they conquered excluding germany and Israel became romanised.

I do not know how anyone can argue against the superiority of the Roman monoculture.

Hitler did not need to use fear tactics until wartime.

pender, he burnt down their parliament. The scare tactics began before the elections. They used to beat up the opposition.

that wasnt scare tactics, that was political masterminding.

people didnt vote for him because of fear...

It was a scare tactic, just like the children overboard. Suppose for the sake of argument that it turned out that Bush was responsible for 9/11 and he did it to get re-elected. It created the climate of fear which justified actions that would otherwise be hard to justify. Just because you don't realise who is trying to scare you doesn't mean it isn't a scare tactic.

i see what your saying freediver but you are forgetting hitler was already in power before the reichstag fire.

looking at it that way if you see a climate of fear as scare tactics then you are correct.

I thought you meant his own populace was in fear of him and the nazis personally, when in fact the nazis were the ones the poeple trusted to save them from the world they were in fear of.

Quote:

I think you are missing a major point DT. Multiculturalism is not something we actively seek. It is a way of living together in peace with the different groups of people that history inevitably throws together. The real argument is not about monoculturalism or multiculturalism, but whether to try to turn a multicultural society into a monocultural one, which is clearly absurd and would not be tolerated by reasonable people.

Well your 'point' is absurd. I reject it completely. I've had enough of 'theory.' Talk about something practical for once for gods sake.




Quote:

Oh I see. So England, France, Spain and Italy were multicultural in the 19th century were they? Yes. If anything the different ethnic groups that were present then have

Do yourself a favour and take history lessons, freediver. There was no such thing as multiculturalism in Europe in the 19th century.

IF you wanted to make a pro-multicultural argument freediver... you SHOULD have mentioned the Normans (William the conqueror) invasion of England. But since you're obviously ignorant of history... you wouldn't know that would you?  ::)



Quote:

And everything created in this period was due to the 'richness' of multiculturalism, right? I didn't say that.

You implied it.
You wrote: Most of what the west has produced in the last few centuries came out of multicultural societies.



Quote:

The fact that you're droning on about how many things have directly resulted from multiculturalism yet you can't name ONE THING. But I'm not doing that.

Bvll.

Look at your above quote. You haven't proved your baseless statement at all.



Quote:

I think I made a mistake using Nazi Germany as an example... LOL. Yes you did.

Shut-up. It's because you're so bigoted on the subject... not becasue I can't debate it.



Quote:

Why don't we talk about my China example, freediver? Or don't you know anything about that? Did you know that minorities in China are specifically protected from the one child policy? Jared Diamond attributes Chinas fall from technological superiority to the fact that it all came under one country and lost it's diversity and itnernal competitivenes, which Europe maintained.

No... I didn't know that... even though I doubt that it's true.

How does Jared Diamond... whom I never read... explain China's fall in technology on loss of diversity?  ::) I'm sure he makes some good points... 'not.'



Quote:

pender, he burnt down their parliament.

He burned down the parliament?  :-? I know he did the beer hall pustch... but... burn down the parliament? Has it ever been proven?

you are forgetting hitler was already in power before the reichstag fire

He did not have sufficient powere to enact his final solution. And as I said, the scare campaign started long before the election.

looking at it that way if you see a climate of fear as scare tactics then you are correct

A manufactured climate of fear.

I thought you meant his own populace was in fear of him and the nazis personally

Both. By the end it was mostly the latter - people knew if you stood up to him you died. But by then the external threat (foreign troops) were real anyway.

---

Talk about something practical for once for gods sake.

DT you are the one banging on about the problems with multiculturalism as if you could just click your fingers and make it go away.

There was no such thing as multiculturalism in Europe in the 19th century.

Yes there was. They just didn't have a word for it. 'Live and let live' would come close. Of course they would get all monocultural every now and then and start killing each other, but they usually came to their sense pretty quickly.

You implied it.

I did not imply it was as simple as you are trying to make out.

But I'm not doing that.

Bvll.  

Look at your above quote. You haven't proved your baseless statement at all.  

I don't see how this is a response to the bit you quoted.

It's because you're so bigoted on the subject... not becasue I can't debate it.

DT I was agreeing with you. If Nazism was a good example of monoculturalism at work then it would work in a debate because it would be a very strong point, once you had made it.

How does Jared Diamond... whom I never read... explain China's fall in technology on loss of diversity?

Innovation comes about through competition.

burn down the parliament? Has it ever been proven?

The Reichstag fire DT.

Quote:

DT you are the one banging on about the problems with multiculturalism as if you could just click your fingers and make it go away.

It's a slow process Freediver. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was expecting miracles. There are small, but practical steps that can be taken.



Quote:

Yes there was. They just didn't have a word for it. 'Live and let live' would come close. Of course they would get all monocultural every now and then and start killing each other, but they usually came to their sense pretty quickly.

Okay... if there are a number of cultures in the same area, that's 'multiculturalism.' Can you please specify when and where two or more cultures were living together in Europe during the 19th century? Thanks.



Quote:

You implied it.   I did not imply it was as simple as you are trying to make out.

What the? What are you talking about? And how am I inaccurate with assuming that you were implying it with a quote like... "Most of what the west has produced in the last few centuries came out of multicultural societies."

That's an extremely straight forward statement.

You said it. Not me.



Quote:

It's because you're so bigoted on the subject... not becasue I can't debate it. DT I was agreeing with you. If Nazism was a good example of monoculturalism at work then it would work in a debate because it would be a very strong point, once you had made it.

You threw in the words... 'evil,' 'fear,' 'craziness,' 'psychotic' and 'lunatics' to describe Nazi Germany, Freediver. You're bigoted. End of story. You're not worth arguing with on the subject. Let's switch to a case study where you'll judge facts instead of what SOCIETY telling you what to think.



Quote:

How does Jared Diamond... whom I never read... explain China's fall in technology on loss of diversity? Innovation comes about through competition.

OMFG. So you're basing it all off 5 words?



Quote:

burn down the parliament? Has it ever been proven? The Reichstag fire DT.

If my history knowledge serves me correctly, Freediver, it's never been proven that the Nazis lit that fire. In fact, wasn't a communist charged with that fire?

There are small, but practical steps that can be taken.

Such as?

Can you please specify when and where two or more cultures were living together in Europe during the 19th century?

There were jews living all over Europe, and Gypsies. Probably a few other cultures too. You could also say the protestants and catholics were different cultures. They used to attack each other occasionally.

That's an extremely straight forward statement.  

Yes it is, but your interpretation was incorrect.

You threw in the words... 'evil,' 'fear,' 'craziness,' 'psychotic' and 'lunatics' to describe Nazi Germany, Freediver.

That's because the Nazis were evil, psychotic, crazy lunatics.

OMFG. So you're basing it all off 5 words?

No. That was a summary for you. If you want to read the book, I'd highly recommend it. It's called 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.

In fact, wasn't a communist charged with that fire?

So what? Do you think Hitler would hold up his hands and say 'I did it, now appoint me dictator please'?

i would agree with dt in saying that euro was largly monocultural. Aside from the jews and gypsies (who were both outcasts) most nations had only one culture, race and culture are different things. The exception is Austria-hungary, which may i ad fell apart due to cultural tensions.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 8:01pm:

The exception is Austria-hungary, which may i ad fell apart due to cultural tensions.

The Absolute truth Pender [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

list of multicultural empiresempires which accepted or promoted more than one language and culture

1. Austria-hungary
2. mongolian empire
3. Holy Roman empire

list of monocultural empires empires which promote or accept only one culture and language.
1. Rome
2. Britain
3. China
4. Babylon
5. Ottoman

the list for successful monocultural empires could be extended much further. the trend seems to be with multicultural empires isone of instability under pressure, while monocultural empires seems much more unified.

How can you say Britain is a monocultural empire?

because in every nation it colonized only one culture was promoted. Every other culture was quashed under the british philosophy. English was the language taught in every school in the british empire. Every nation celebrated Empire day. The religion promoted and often the only religious practice accepted was anglicanism. Most significantly though was the idea the british had of making the world british. When they colonised like many other colonial counterparts the english went about making the inhabitants british, changing the way they dressed, what they ate, etc.

In a multiculteral empire the british would have let the nations they conquered continue their old practices, which they clearly did not do.

Britain was so much more successful than the other European powers in creating and holding their empire together precisely because they did not try to run roughshod over the locals to the same extent. Furthermore, even if they did have policies that seemed hostile to multiculturalism, that does not in any way mean they did not have a multicultural empire.

freediver wrote on Jul 26^th, 2007 at 5:17pm:

Britain was so much more successful than the other European powers in creating and holding their empire together precisely because they did not try to run roughshod over the locals to the same extent. Furthermore, even if they did have policies that seemed hostile to multiculturalism, that does not in any way mean they did not have a multicultural empire.

i dont really know how you can be called multicultural if your policies are against multiculuralism... Australia only became a multicultural nation in 1974 when our policies changed, thats not to say that there was not people of different cultural background already living here.

besides which i owuld say that britain was successful due to its maritime power, which was not matched by anyone, not even france.

All empires will have policies that support or oppress multiculturalism to varying degrees. To say that it is somehow binary is absurd.

Britain won a war or two because of it's maritime power, but that is not the same thing as building and maintaining an empire. The maritime power came about through successful empire building.

an empire they held together through red coats :)

i agree though it is not binary, however i believe their goal was a monoculture, and the did succeed to a great extent in achieving it.

Thier goal was trade and making money.

one of their goals was money, but the governement was more concerned with the greatness of the empire, and thus the greatness of englishism.

No, that's just a little self indulgent vanity they could afford once they were at the top.

so you agree then they were interested in britainising the world :)