AHC/PC: Prosperous Multireligious/Multi-linguistic/Multicultural/Multiracial Nations

I want to elaborate on Malaysia though. Certainly it has favorable policies toward the bumiputera*, but it is quite prosperous, having a functional democracy, and could resolve many of its racial problems through the democratic mechanism.

Malaysian education system recognizes ethnic minority schools (Chinese and Tamil schools, even some Malays send their children to Chinese schools), which is more progressive than many European nations.

*(sons of the land, which usually means "Malay" until Orang Asli was counted recently.)

Post-Franco Spain and Post-War Italy both have multi-cultural policies that respects minorities such as the Sardinians, Catalans, Basques and Sicilians, and I don't see Spain and Italy consumed by communal violence.
 

Czar Kaizer

Banned
Although Multireligious/Multi-linguistic/Multicultural/Multiracial Nations are a beauty for their diversity the bad thing is that they are also associated with poverty, crime, and other major problems all due to the caste system that makes some groups more equal than others.

But can such a society that is rich, democratic, more equal, and free of most major internal problems exist? What countries fall into that category?

And normally this would be Chat but I want to see which nations could fall into this category so I put it here instead.
So the problem here is that you assume that these countries have problems because of their diversity, which is false. First off you can't throw all these countries into the same into the same box, many have problems which are specific to the country and often issues which seem to be "ethnic" or "religious" are often the result of economic turmoil or government corruption.
Secondly the assertion that diversity leads to instability is false and is rooted in racist ideology(though I am not accusing you of being racist) and the question reminds me a lot about those weird racist theories that the roman empire fell because of too much race mixing.
 
Secondly the assertion that diversity leads to instability is false and is rooted in racist ideology(though I am not accusing you of being racist) and the question reminds me a lot about those weird racist theories that the roman empire fell because of too much race mixing.

The thing is, diversity very rarely co-exists with equity. When you have diversity created through oppressive means such as conquest or importation of slaves, it creates resentment and often creates political-economic structures which perpetuate inequity. You can say that these structures are "bad government" and "corruption" and not ethnic tension, but the fact is this bad government and corruption effects people along ethnic/tribal/linguistic lines, so you can't dismiss that aspect of it.

While it is possible to have diverse groups willingly come together under one political banner in a form that encourages mutual welfare and support, it's very rare, so RandomWriterGuy is on to something when he says that diverse countries often have problems and those problems do sometimes seem to stem from diversity i.e. having multiple ethnic groups who dislike each other.

But, let's see. Switzerland is definitely an example of a multi-ethnic state. A POD in the French revolution could see the nation-state of France being far more culturally and linguistically diverse. A Native American political coalition that manages to drive off European invaders but continues to be menaced enough by them to stay united could be diverse. Othersyde's Children of the Sun will probably turn out that way in the long term. On the other hand, you could get a situation were a dominant tribe absorbs the others into it linguistically and culturally-we saw this with the Seminole, where the Muscogee component of the runaway tribes which formed them largely culturally absorbed the smaller tribes as well as many of the blacks in their ranks.
 
And since this is posted in the pre-1900 forum, let's not forget about the Austro-Hungarian or Austrian Habsburg empire... Growing up in Belgium I remember the Austrian ruleers to be considered 'good' because they brought prosperity and didn't care too much about languages. Off course, it helped that both Flanders and Vienna were Catholic
 
Hapsburgs

If they could avoid or survive world war 1, you have Austria Hungary. You would need less discrimination by the Magyars, so the other people would want to stay in.
Austria Hungary was already multi religious, certainly multi lingual, and relatively prosperous. And it was moving toward being democratic. If FF had not been shot and cooler heads prevailed in Hungary, voila.
 
So the problem here is that you assume that these countries have problems because of their diversity, which is false. First off you can't throw all these countries into the same into the same box, many have problems which are specific to the country and often issues which seem to be "ethnic" or "religious" are often the result of economic turmoil or government corruption.
Secondly the assertion that diversity leads to instability is false and is rooted in racist ideology(though I am not accusing you of being racist) and the question reminds me a lot about those weird racist theories that the roman empire fell because of too much race mixing.

I'm not saying diversity is the cause. The problem IS the corrupt individuals that relegate groups of people to lowly positions. And thereby causes these problems.

As a brazilian myself i might know something about my own country, but ok man, whatever you say.

Anything you want to say?
 

Lateknight

Banned
America is objectivity the greatest nation in human history and is an prosperous multiracial and multicultural country.
 
Last edited:

Lateknight

Banned
How do define greatest? And by it, do you mean "most powerful"?

I mean greatest as most influential and prosperous country which it still is no matter what figures the chinese government claims. And by most powerful I mean Americas got the greatest military and strongest alliance in the world.
 
America the objectivity greatest nation in human history is a prosperous multiracial and multicultural country.

Any country with regular school shootings and no health care is not 'objectivity greatest'.
And get the grammar right, fool! (Oh look, I'm channeling the spirit of Mr. T today)
 
In all immigrant countries, one main (rather privileged) racial group dominates the population, while the other racial groups are minorities. Take the USA, its population breaks down like this:

77.7% White
13.2% African American
5.3% Asian
1.2% Native American
2.6% Other

I'm not aware of a country where all the racial groups exist in roughly numerically equal quantity. I'm talking about a country with a racial breakdown like this:

25% White
25% Asian
20% Black
20% Mestizo
10% Other/Mixed-Race

How would a country like that work?
 
In all immigrant countries, one main (rather privileged) racial group dominates the population, while the other racial groups are minorities. Take the USA, its population breaks down like this:

77.7% White
13.2% African American
5.3% Asian
1.2% Native American
2.6% Other


I'm not aware of a country where all the racial groups exist in roughly numerically equal quantity. I'm talking about a country with a racial breakdown like this:

25% White
25% Asian
20% Black
20% Mestizo
10% Other/Mixed-Race

How would a country like that work?

Where are the Latinos at?!

Simple. Embrace the differences. Though in such a society the mixed-race would be over 35% in my opinion.
 
Where are the Latinos at?!

Simple. Embrace the differences. Though in such a society the mixed-race would be over 35% in my opinion.

"Latino" isn't a race, nor should it be IMHO. It's a marker of cultural/national origin (i.e. tracing their nationality to a country once a territory of another country like Spain or Portugal), since in purely genetic terms your "average" Mexican (demographically speaking, majority mestizo as per their own census) isn't racially similar to a "typical" Cuban, and neither are alike in this regard to Argentinians, who are distinct from Bolivians, who in turn are different from Brazilians, etc. After all, both Andy Garcia and George Lopez are technically Latino, but they're physically quite different in superficial terms (and let's face it, race is very much a matter of superficiality when you get down to it).

EDIT: Now if you want to start slotting larger numbers of Hispanic-Americans (using the USA as the example for the moment) into the "multiracial" category, that wouldn't be inaccurate per se, but it really depends on how people see themselves as much as anything else.
 
Top