Exactly as it says on the tin. Is ethnic Homogeneity really necessary for a successful country? I have often seen people argue that this was the reason why Western Europe, Japan and later China were able to successfully industrialise. If so does that mean non-homogenous countries are fundamentally incapable of developing nationalism and having a strong economy?
Is Ethnic Homogeneity overrated ?
- Thread starter Taloc13
- Start date
- Status
I'd say it isn't necessary, but it might help. "Might" being the operative word there, as the ethnic make up of a country is but one factor in many. This is not really an option covered in the poll, so I'm refraining from voting.
@ObsessedNuker: Of course Ethnic Homogeneity helps, but what I mean is that is it absolutely necessary for a country? I posted this thread because this came up repeatedly in a number of those 'wank certain Asian/African country threads' that keep popping up.
@fjihr settler colonies are an exception of course.
@fjihr settler colonies are an exception of course.
I find this question abhorent. It sounds like a veiled excuse to justify ethnic cleansing. Besides that, "ethnicity" is a 19th century construct. It was used by elites to foster a sense of "otherness" which made inequality and oppression politically palpable. Inequality and oppression lead to instability and instability is the enemy of industrialisation, not ethnic diversity.
@KevinLessard
Uhh..what? I asked this because people seem to often state this state this as the reason why India or any other heterogeneous country find it difficult to fully modernise. I disagree with this view and wanted to know what exactly motivated people say so, so the nature of the question is in fact the exact opposite of what you think.
Edit: I agree with you on the ethnicity issue, I simply used the word because I couldn't find a better English term.
Uhh..what? I asked this because people seem to often state this state this as the reason why India or any other heterogeneous country find it difficult to fully modernise. I disagree with this view and wanted to know what exactly motivated people say so, so the nature of the question is in fact the exact opposite of what you think.
Edit: I agree with you on the ethnicity issue, I simply used the word because I couldn't find a better English term.
Minty_Fresh
Banned
Ethnic homogeneity generally leads to more stable and equitable situations in advanced economies, but it also can be disastrous in terms of nations with aging populations. I would not argue that it does the same in developing economies.
Somalia is one of the most ethnically homogenous countries in Africa, and also probably one of the worst off. But at the same time, North Africa is mostly ethnically homogenous (most all Arabs and Berbers), and (aside from Libya in the past few years) it's better off than most all sub-Saharan Africa.
I dislike these sorts of generalisations I see in political science as they tend to generalise the situations and don't take into account other reasons why nations cannot modernise/industrialise/develop.
I dislike these sorts of generalisations I see in political science as they tend to generalise the situations and don't take into account other reasons why nations cannot modernise/industrialise/develop.
Hey, sorry to have misinterpreted your intent. You're right that there isn't really a better way to put in English. I just cringe every time I see ethnicity discussed like it's a real thing.
people say that, but a strong argument can be made that ethnic identities existed as far back as Ancient Greece.
Ethnic homogeneity can help, but it depends. America's the best proof that it not necessary.
Yes. Cultural unity, a sense of common nationhood, on the other hand, is if anything, underrated.
Minty_Fresh
Banned
Perhaps America proves that cultural assimilation is more important than ethnic homogeneity. Groups that don't assimilate don't really thrive. Groups that assimilate eventually become part of the power structure and thrive.
Britain was one of, if not the most, successful industrialising nation. Do English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish count as a single ethnicity? (Legit asking).
Also, Germany included large minorities of Danes, Poles, and French.
And then there's ethnically homogenous, but largely backwater for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, Portugal.
Part of the problem is you're taking the last 200 years, a brief snapshot in human history, as somehow definitive. The Great Divergence was a fluke which is even now fading away. It should not be used as definitive of anything.
Last edited:
Not absolutely essential. The Swiss seem to do well enough without it. But there's no avoiding the fact that they are something of an exception that proves the rule.
Not as much as you might think. There e.g. are also Belgium, Luxemburg, interwar Czechoslovakia and even Austria-Hungary who were economically more successful than their more ethnically homogenous neighbours. In cases of crises and / or external pressure countries with unresolved ethnic tensions do of course face an increased risk of fracturing along ethnic fault lines.
Derek Pullem
Donor
I think the problem here is the terminology - ethnic homogeneity carries overtones of "ein Reich, ein Volk" when what I think the OP means is cultural unity. The success of Britain was very much linked to a shared cultural vision of a British Empire. That didn't totally remove the competing cultural constructs at the Scots and Irish (and to some degree Welsh) levels but enough of the people at all levels in society bought into the concept of a British culture to make it successful.
Present day America is another good example of this.
not necessary at all. and tbh any region that has had a history of colonial exploitation needs to be taken out of the equation here. Theres too many residual effects of imperial "divide and conquer" still at play
- Status