Here is an excellent brand new article discussing Multicultural societies compared to  Homogenous societies.

I would love for someone to refute this article in its personal opinion that homogenous, unicultural nations are far more successful and stable than nations under multiculturalism


anglonz.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/multicultural-vs-homogenous-nations.html

Many cultures living side by side is one thing. It's the stuff of life. Regional varieties, countries comprising of different ethnicities and so forth. No big deal, run of the mill.

Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is an insidious ideology, an ism, an ukase, a directive, a PC BS imposition.

If you want to preserve your folk dancing traditions, preserve it by all means. But it is not the government's business or the taxpayer's expense to sanction or fund your efforts to preserve it for you.i

Mathew wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:


For one thing humanity itself would render such a description probably moot.  We are all individuals not some homogenous blob.

But the  largest most recent study of diversity policy by Robert Putnam would disagree with it.

Grendel wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 6:35pm:


One that is based on tolerance and acceptance, rather than intolerance and racism/bigotry/Xenophobia?

One that is inclusive, rather than exclusive of it's citizens?

One that works most of the time for most of it's citizens, as against one that only works for a minority of citizens, rarely?

Beowulf, looks to me like you need to figure out what you really want Australia to look like?  I for one want one where most citizens rub along just fine with one another, most of the time.  One where people respect one another rather than hate one another...   

Now, now Beowulf no need to obfuscate.

I'm still waiting for you to reply with something on topic and sensible.

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 14^th, 2013 at 1:02am:


Good point. Why is China doing so well?

A lot of people have put it down to China's East Asia networks. In other words, rather than being a cosmopolitan immigrant trading hegemony a la Amerika or Mother England, China is an emmigrant nation, making use of all those emigres sprinkled throughout Asia and the world.

I wonder, however, how sustainable this is. China has not, so far, developed global product brands - a la Japan or South Korea. Its emigres are brokers - ethnic-Chinese contractors who set up shop in Chinese free trade zones and do piecework for the foreign branded corporations. It's a business model that has developed China, but what next?

What's next, I think, is a booming middle class looking for new novelties, and this will, inevitably, mean a huge cultural shift in China.

Homogeneity does lead to stagnation. It's why Deng Zhou Ping uttered his famous line about cats catching mice - it doesn't matter what colour cat catches the mouse, China became rampantly capitalist the day that utterance was delivered - that's if capitalism wasn't in the DNA of the Chinese people anyway.

The essence of capitalism is class heterogeneity. China now has an economic system that facilitates this, even if it's corrupt. Most of the sons and daughters of the princelings have Western educations or live in the West full time, and this is the Chinese model - outward, rather than inward looking.

Now, now Beowulf no need to obfuscate.

I'm still waiting for you to reply with something on topic and sensible.