Has multiculturalism ever worked in history?

Is there any play or time in history, where massive amounts of foreigners came into a country and the country didn't went to complete shit?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0NcaxmGHo
comp.uark.edu/~cmuntz/texts/claudius-lyon-speech.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood,_Tulsa
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

When there was slaves

North America
Australia
South Africa (for a while)

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

...

>North America, 18th and 19th centuries.
>South Africa, 19th century.
>Australia, 19th century

And so on. Basically whenever white people were doing it.

sort of, but they were all assimilationist. The romans would conquer people and force them to be roman.

Yes... When they were first world immigrants.

With that said, keep societies mono-ethnic at least while you try to be a "diversity society with multiple nacionalities"

And vote for Geert.

It's working exactly as intended

That one culture that existed until the end of the ice age that used the 28000 year wobble of the Earth's axis as a time measurement to navigate East to West.

of course not, but the short term "benefits" are always too politically intoxicating for it to be prevented

>cheap labor
>easy to manipulate politically into your favor (embrace the migrant in exchange for the temporary support)

what the fuck do politicians or rich people care if the vast majority of the native population are negatively affected? they all live in gated communities with 24/7 security

Jews had issues ruling white people, so they needed niggers, mexicans and arabs to create divide and conquer.

Now the whites are mistakingly taking out their angst against mexicans and arabs instead of the people who brought them here in the first place... to get the heat off of the jews.

Only if the foreigners are white

It works when theres a clear hierarchy

yes -> u.s.a. ,but only when its based on white european

Look at all the countries bordering niggers/arabs/turks. They all have been doing nothing for quite some time now. It happened because they had to take care of stupid problems like having foreigners in their own countries aka multiculti stuff.

Remove multiculti and you will achieve greatness, unless you let liberals turn it into a communistic "paradise".

It works just fine in Canada

Never, ever.

North America has its own culture that its inhabitants generally stick to.
Australia is a monoculture with de facto segregation.
SA after segregation is genocidal mayhem.

ahmed the rapist is right. niggers dont addapt to shit not to mention chinks or arabs so the shit is impossible. we multiracial with one culture

youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0NcaxmGHo

but it is working very well user
just not in our favor

Canada is 90% white.

not to mention they are only getting rich chinks and tech savy poo loos

I'm sure Justin "We can't be killed" Trudeau are changeing that fast

yeah, and it will stop working fine momentarily.

...

that

fucking

pic

Do niggers fail to adapt because they have no foresight? They're literally children in adult bodies. The worst people I've ever seen for failing to adapt are Jews. Niggers will pick up regional accents based on where they live, even sandpeople do, but not Jews. Every Jew everywhere on the planet who speaks English sounds exactly the fucking same because they refuse to leave their own community. Once you know this it puts a whole new spin on the Jewish ghetto meme.

Multiculturalism as in different cultures living in one country. No. In america there has minimal multiculturalism considering there has been so many different immigrants, but by the third or second generation the American culture absorbs them. I can say there are only two cultures, nigger culture which many latinos, wiggers leftists and jews fall into and even recently arabs. And there is white culture.

>Let's mix a bunch of Germanic tribes/kingdoms into one country, surely they'll work together!
>Endless conflict when heavy-handed government is toppled
>Let's mix a bunch of African Ethnicities into one country, surely they'll work together!
>Endless conflict when heavy-handed government is toppled
>Let's mix a bunch of Balkan Ethnicities into one country, surely they'll work together!
>Endless conflict when heavy-handed government is toppled
>Let's mix a bunch of Central Asian Ethnicities into one country, surely they'll work together!
>Endless conflict when heavy-handed government is toppled
>Let's mix a bunch of Arab Tribes into one country, surely they'll work together!
>Endless conflict when heavy-handed government is toppled
>etc.
>Let's mix a bunch of people from ALL OVER THE PLACE into one country, surely they'll work together!

All large empires like Rome or Persia or China were multicultural in their heyday

It has never worked.

It is oxymoronic.

You cannot have a functioning society if different groups play by different rules. If groups arbitrarily decide what laws do or do not work for them or for others, it leads to political conflict, mass nepotism corruption, and so on. The society doesn't function, and the result is conflict, violence or exile of specific groups.

Things like apartheid/slave classes/segregation have something like 0% success rate. They work for a bit, then collapse. Even when you forcibly sustain two cultures in the same space, the friction threatens the stability of the system overall.

What is touted as "multiculturalism works!" is in all scenarios a diverse group of people sharing the same culture - people emigrate to a country and integrate into a new society, or on a more local scale, people from different backgrounds join a business and adhere to company policy that all are subject to.

All nations and societies are a monocultural entity, and problems are ALWAYS found at the exact fault lines where differing cultures meet.

Multiculturalism exists exclusively in nature where life is nasty, brutish and short - people never trade, never co-operate, because the moment either side compromises on anything, they are creating a new monoculture that they just then established.

Keep in mind I am saying this in a functional, societal sense. Multiculture works just fine in the arts or in personal expression, as those things are deliberately made distinct from policy or law, as everyone can step outside the artistic sphere and stand on the exact same playing field - but even this has to come with the understanding that even in the arts, some cultures are more successful and favored than others.

No they werent. They were composed of segregated ethnostates within a federation. To say they were multiculti as we know it today is total falsehood.

Rome had temples from almost every province they ruled apart from the Druids, were tolerant of almost all religions, and only plebs spoke no Greek.

The Persian emperors were similarly tolerant of different religion and spoke even more languages than the Roman ones. Parthian emperors styled themselves "Philhellene" because they were patrons of Greek culture. The Sassanids might be a step back but even so Babylonian, Sogdian and Iranian cultures intermixed in their major cities.

Imperial Chinese generals were often Mongols, Manchus or Turks, such as famously An Lushan. Ming emperors went so far as to inscribe Koranic verses in Arab mosques in their capital at Nanking.

You are a clueless retard.

"Consider all the distinguished young men I see before me: the fact that they are senators should cause no more regret than that felt by Persicus--a most distinguished man and a friend of mine--when he reads the name Allobrogicus among the images of his ancestors. And if you agree that this is true, what should I not also point out to you that the land beyond Gallia Narbonensis already sends you senators? We do not, after all, regret that we have men in the senate from Lugdunum."

comp.uark.edu/~cmuntz/texts/claudius-lyon-speech.html

Read some actual history for a change rather than believe all the stupid memes you read on a fucking image board

Seems like it could work, but not on an country way but on a global scale if that makes sense. I dunno identity politics fucked everything for everybody

No, never.

Nope. Foreigners bring with them their own culture. Culture isn't just language, but a way of social interactions, concepts of power, a value system on virtues and vices. It's a modern myth that cultures all agree on some basic level (sure, that people need to cooperate, but that's about it).

There must be a dominant culture. Having a plurality of cultures means having a plurality of values, which will inevitably conflict with one another. I am not saying ideas cannot conflict, but culture - the way we interact, the base foundation of a society - cannot have options.

In history, there are two modes for a civilisation - a culture that grows and others adopt to it or a culture that is replaced by another one, either through violence or adoption.

Indian Empire.
Strict caste system, no racemixing/intermarriage, every tribe had their designated role. Worked bretty güd.

well apart from the roaches but hey

that's not the multiculturalism we get now tough, there isn't even a strict legal system let alone a caste system

Rome, Seleucia, Chang'an are all examples of ancient capitals with many different cultures living side-by-side. Assimilating into Roman culture happened only as much as Romans assimilating into other cultures happened - Christianity and Mithradism are obvious examples of multiculturalism

Which fucking Indian Empire you stupid kraut?

Every single time the foreigners were some based whites,that wanted to live there and made a colony in a non white plece because their homeland was already developed but getting overpopulated they made sure to improve the country they end up

The only thing that makes a society a society is shared social norms

Yeah nothing says multiculturalism like boiling someone in lead.

Who boiled what in lead?

I don't know, why don't yo ask the austro-hungarians, Ummayyadhs, Mongols, Ottomans empires ?

They lack foresight/forehead :DD

In conclusion:

Almost all ancient empires were multicutural. They were not segregated ethno-states since different races, cultures and religions mixed, for most of the time peacefully, in their large cities. Their rulers were multilingual, often themselves racially mixed, and took care to be seen as the patrons of the cultures of subject minorities. From Cyrus to Alexander to Kangxi, great rulers have recognised the importance of multiculturalism in ruling an empire, and actively took steps to encourage it.

USA.
Canada.
Australia.

Basically, when invaders are whites and the locals are too few in number to take over again.

top kek

That's not multiculturalism frog, that's genocide

toppus kekkus

Nice rebuttal you haven't got there

"Cyrus the Great respected the customs and religions of the lands he conquered. This became a very successful model for centralized administration and establishing a government working to the advantage and profit of its subjects."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

"Alexander sought to insert Greek elements into Persian culture and attempted to hybridize Greek and Persian culture. This culminated in his aspiration to homogenize the populations of Asia and Europe."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

"The early rulers maintained their Manchu ways, and while their title was Emperor, they used khan to the Mongols and they were patrons of Tibetan Buddhism. They governed using Confucian styles and institutions of bureaucratic government and retained the imperial examinations to recruit Han Chinese to work under or in parallel with Manchus. They also adapted the ideals of the tributary system in dealing with neighboring territories."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty

Qing chong dynasty to you too.

The only thing that matters are Europeans.

>of the lands he conquered
Multiculturalism refers to many different cultures living in one country, not a few different cultures living in a huge patchwork of countries.

There are countless instances of majorities exterminating minorities for e.g. having the wrong religion, and you ignore that because you're a cunt and want us overrun by ISIS types.

>points to mercenaries and segregated ethnostates within loose decentralized pre modern empires as evidence of a multicultural utopia.

Nothing from the pre industrial world comes close to representing a tolerant multicultural society by today's definition. Mainly because of the autocratic nature of all these states.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood,_Tulsa

It works until white people ruin everything.

Romans and Macedonians then. But OP asked "any place or time in history", and the greatest empires in history tend not to be white. Persia, China, India are the great ancient empires, and of course Rome, which adopted a Semitic religion. Europe's preeminence is a very modern phenomenon, and looking at how demographics are shaping, not one that will last very long

As I said, large cities in ancient empires have many different cultures living side by side. Rome had temples and deities and mysteries and language imported from all over the world.

Yes there are countless instances of majorities exterminating minorities, but they almost all occur when an empire is in terminal decline.

we should ruin your racist asses with a fucking suicide bomber

nothing wrong with multiculturalism if everyone has a high IQ. It's low IQ that is the problem with the world.

The solution is genius sperm banks/donors.

look how all of that turned out.
we're watching now live america self destructing.
mark my words

wat

>almost all
Weasel words.

>when an empire is in terminal decline.
Total bollocks.

I don't know what you mean by today's definition a tolerant multicultural society. No, of course ancient societies are different from today's, but as long as you obey the law, you can speak what you want, believe what you want and wear what you want without harrassment from the authorities.

And, again, the rural areas both today and in ancient times are predominantly homogeneous in culture. We are only talking about big cities, both then and now. Don't be coy.

Please give a counterexample, then. And they aren't weasel words - I know cases when massacres happened while an empire is rising in strength, but I know far more cases of that sort of thing occuring after decline set in

Fuck off, Hans. Our housing market was destroyed by chinks and immigrants never assimilate. Just because we don't have many suicide bombers it doesn't mean multiculturalism is successful here. (We actually do have terrorists, but CSIS catches most of em before they carry out an attack)
Canada is 75% white, in the big cities whites are a minority.

The Chinese Dynasties, but they fall apart every 250 years

t. filename

Yes... just before they collapsed. I'm sure there's no correlation though. It would be RACIST to imply that.

The Roman Empire
The Indian Mauryan Empire,
Mohammed's conquests
The Rashidun Caliphates, and so on.
The Ottoman Empire
it goes on and on

Germanic Migration in the latter part of Ancient Roman era.

WE WUZ KINGZ. Correct.
We're not multicultural, that's how we achieved global dominance. Your country is destroying itself because they want to forcefully integrate multiple peoples from multiple races.

Not being coy. When OP or anyone else asks about multicultural societies and can they work, its in reference to today's world. Usually in relation to current large scale migration from culturally alien societies into western countries.

Pointing to ancient autocracies where small numbers of elites lorded over the masses is evidence of nothing in this case.

>[Romans] were tolerant of almost all religions
The Romans massacred Christians by the tens of thousands even under based Aurelius, and then they did the same to non-Christians.

You are woefully ignorant.

spicy

No, they were multicultural when they were strong, but became less multicultural after they started declining. Which makes sense, I suppose - they ruled over more subject minorities when they were strong, less after they decline. but still.

In fact, I'm interested in seeing anyone here offering an example of a powerful premodern empire that is not multicultural

those are all failures?

>South Africa

Top kek. Nice bait m8.

The only time this piece of shit place worked was when we ruled and blacks knew their place. They had a safer better way of life too. Its turning bad now, most younger generation whites are emmigrating asap.

Specific examples, with links to wikipedia. Don't just list all the ancient empires you can name and hope you sound impressive

Look, he asked "any time or place in history". Surely ancient autocracies qualify as a time and place in history. What I'm interested in is just history, I hate the modern world

The Romans became intolerant after their decline! Did religious massacres occur during the Principate? And the anti-Christian persecutions happened only because Christians were not tolerant enough - they refused to worship the emperor as a god. In the late Republic and Principate religions coexisted very peacefully, as you know perfectly well

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a pretty good track record with multiculturalism, but that was more because they allowed different peoples (Ashkenazi Jews, Muslim Tatars, Orthodox Ukrainians) within their empire to have de-facto self rule. In fact, before the Cossack revolts, the king was going to uplift Kiev into a third kingdom within the Commonwealth.

Ultimately, it wasn't multiculturalism that doomed the PLC, it was getting gang raped by their neighbors over and over against for a couple centuries with no time to recover from it.

Rome was NOT multicultural. They were cultural bigots of an extreme order: it's just that they gave no fucks about race. In their minds, anyone of any stock could be a Roman, so long as they abandoned their inferior culture (Except the Greeks, they were cool with the Greeks) and actually adopted Roman customs, social mores, and beliefs.

Another one. Chezuz crust do you fuckers even history? First we fought against the zulus, then we fought against the english then we had to give everything away and be oppresses. How has multiculturalism ever worked here?

>Aurelius
>after their decline
As I said, woefully ignorant.

Why do you want us beheaded by muslims?

*Anglos
Every other European colony was a violent hellhole

The Romans also abandoned their inferior culture in favour of foreign ones, like Serapis, Mithras or Christ. Furthermore, I took multiculturalism to mean different cultures coexisting peacefully side by side, in which case Rome was definitely multicultural: you don't have to give up your culture, your gods or your religion to live in the City.

Oh yeah... I like where this is heading!

Rome, for a while

Babylon. Then God came down and said no.

Jew elites are trying to rebuild the tower of babel (EU parliament, BIS HQ) to try and prove the existence of God by doing every conceivable evil act possible.

...

I don't want us to be beheaded by Muslims, and I think Islam is very dangerous to modern civilisation, but that does not necessarily imply multiculturalism has never worked before.

Aurelius didn't massacre Christians, he persecuted them, for political not cultural reasons, he left other religions alone, I did say "almost all" religions in my original post

Yeah, when shitty countries were invaded by superior ones. It's never worked in reverse but what kind of superior country would allow themselves to be invaded by a less civilized cultures

>self destructing

Nigger that's not multiculti

Germanic immigration destroyed Rome what the fuck are you talking aboot.

Alexander would simply hellenize the territories he would capture/annex and his men would simply impregnate local women and then they'd move on. The local populations were being left more or less intact and a generation down the line there'd be just a handfull of greek mongrels and that's it. This is what happened throughout most of the hellenistic period, even shortly after his death.
This is what happened with the early roman empire as well, the difference being, the romans were getting hellenised as much as the greeks were being romanised, and other populations followed suit. The other main difference being, due to the scale of the empire, when decadance grew so did the immigration from annexed states into the capital and the surrounding areas. Slave trade, cheap labour and illegal smuggling, soon enough multiculturalism had set in and it was the end, mainly because the strict hierarchy had crumbled.

Romans never forced anyone to be multicultural. If you want a seat in the Senate then yes, you had better assimilate. If you don't you can be whatever culture you want

You can't really pinpoint Rome's fall to a single cause like that. It's not like Rome's financial and cultural stagnation and decadence didn't play a part in the loss of martial might. Which then necessitated the usage of germanic soldiers in roman armies. And from there germanics gained rights within rome etc, while being truly loyal to their own kin.

How can you be so ignorant of your own country's history? Alexander set up Greek city-states throughout the areas he conquered, and these states were also multicultural, like Seleucia in Mesopotamia or Bactria in Afghanistan. He also famously forced his officers to marry local women - not impregnate, monogamous marriage.

Rome was at its heyday when multiculturalism set in. Caligula and Claudius for example were good friends with Herod, the Jewish king, because they went to school together. Rome's strength and multiculturalism lasted a very long time, side by side. The Huns put an end to that, but they put an end to many things that were not multicultural also

>The romans would conquer people and force them to be roman.
Not really. They left them to develop their own culture if they paid taxes and served in the army. At least before Christianization.
They just occupied the foreign nations, Gauls and Spaniards were never "Roman" they were just part of the empire.

That's really the only way "multiculturalism" works, 1 nation controlling others with military might.

only a matter of time bro. you'll probably start a war you cannot win, like with China, for instance.

China the new overlords

They were only "mutlicultural" when they were strong because they ruled over other discrete, segregated cultures. They only mixed (and became truly "multicultural") as they declined.

They mixed when they were strong. As I've said, there was a plethora of religions in Rome in the late Republic. Foreigners lived besides Romans and many languages were spoken in the baths and forums.

As Rome declined they became increasingly intolerant, first against Christians, then against non-Christians. The empire fell in part because of a backlash against barbarian officers, leading to Stilicho's execution