Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would Africa would look like if ethnicities would have their own states?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    IF, if that would be true how can you explain the success of the USofA. Your boat won't float. It sank at launching.
    Up through the 70's the US was pretty homogenous in language, culture, etc. About 80% of the population was White with Blacks, Hispanics and a very small Asian population making up the rest. Schools taught an America centered version of history, civics, language, etc.
    English was universal as a language. A Judeo-Christian set of religious values was very dominant. The biggest issue with immigration was assimilating like-Europeans who spoke a different language and had somewhat different cultural norms.
    Post 70's the US has become far more varied culturally. Whites today make up about 50% of the population with Hispanics at nearly 30%. Blacks, Asians, Africans, Indians (India type), etc., are now significant parts of the population.
    Language is far more fractured. Spanish is the most obvious. You can function in the US today without learning English just speaking Spanish. Other languages dominate certain cities and areas as well. Schools now teach a "multicultural" version of history, have courses in multiple languages, often leave civics aside, and in general no longer give students an "American" education.

    The result has been a fracturing of society into more and more segments that act in their own best interest and share few values with society in general. America is losing any cultural identity as a separate nation. It doesn't matter if the identity is the traditional one or another. Without some common identity, that it is losing fast, it won't stand as a nation any more than the Soviet Union could with its cultural diversity.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Emtos View Post
      Tell the Swiss about that.
      The Swiss had a civil war in 1847.
      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

      Comment


      • #18
        All I hear is talk about problems, not many solutions out there-



        If anyone has any ideas on what to DO, its a refreshing change.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
          The Swiss had a civil war in 1847.
          I can think of much worse civil war records though. Not few either.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Emtos View Post
            Tell the Swiss about that.
            90% of the Swiss speak German. The tiny minorities that speak Italian or French mainly do so because they are adjacent to those countries and often deal more with them than Switzerland because of topography.

            The reason Belgium is Belgium is that they aren't French so to speak. That is, they have a different language and culture than France so they evolved into a separate country.

            Look at Canada. There is a tiny vocal minority in one Provence that speaks French. They tenaciously hold on to that difference even though it really causes problems for the rest of Canada that they speak a different language and have a separate culture to a degree.

            Cultural diversity usually causes more problems than it solves.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              90% of the Swiss speak German. The tiny minorities that speak Italian or French mainly do so because they are adjacent to those countries and often deal more with them than Switzerland because of topography.

              The reason Belgium is Belgium is that they aren't French so to speak. That is, they have a different language and culture than France so they evolved into a separate country.

              Look at Canada. There is a tiny vocal minority in one Provence that speaks French. They tenaciously hold on to that difference even though it really causes problems for the rest of Canada that they speak a different language and have a separate culture to a degree.

              Cultural diversity usually causes more problems than it solves.
              Good point. I would like to add that a country such as China only managed to survive and reunite over and over again because of over two thousand years of homogenization. Even those that conquered her went through sinicization. Here in America that similar process somehow seemed be frowned upon due to strange progressive thinking.
              Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

              Prayers.

              BoRG

              http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                90% of the Swiss speak German. The tiny minorities that speak Italian or French mainly do so because they are adjacent to those countries and often deal more with them than Switzerland because of topography.

                The reason Belgium is Belgium is that they aren't French so to speak. That is, they have a different language and culture than France so they evolved into a separate country.

                Look at Canada. There is a tiny vocal minority in one Provence that speaks French. They tenaciously hold on to that difference even though it really causes problems for the rest of Canada that they speak a different language and have a separate culture to a degree.

                Cultural diversity usually causes more problems than it solves.
                90% of the Swiss may speak German, but it is not the mother tongue of 90% of the Swiss: From wiki
                : Swiss German (4,027,917, or 61.1%); French (1,523,094, 23.1%); Standard German (637,439, 9.7%); Italian (545,274, 8.2%); Ticinese and Grisons (107,973, 1.6%); Romansh (37,490, 0.57%); English (278,407, 4.2%); other languages (1,382,508, 16.5%).[140]
                The French and Italian provinces are voluntary members of the confederation, and given Europe's confusing language boundaries, anything is possible.

                Belgium is Belgium because it is no longer the Spanish Netherlands, the Austrian Netherlands, the United Provinces. Walloon is a French dialect, just as Belgian Flemish is a Dutch dialect (Flemish dialects still exist in France and Germany).

                Looking at the US, French creoles are loosing ground in Louisiana and Texas, but Spanish is regaining ground in Florida, and the former Spanish territories. German is slowly dying, and Dutch has almost certainly disappeared. I will not comment on the state of native languages. But the US has never had a unified culture, and English is not the official language - there is no official language.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                  IF, if that would be true how can you explain the success of the USofA. Your boat won't float. It sank at launching.
                  Well the United States was about as Multicultural as England upon its founding, unless you count the large slave population, who were slaves. Obviously. The United States became more multicultural over time as it assimilated several waves of immigration. But one thing I can pretty much guarantee is that every time new immigrants showed up there was no shortage of people living in America complaining about how the new immigrants are lazy, useless, racially or culturally inferior and wishing they would go back to where they came from. It takes time for new populations to find their place in a country, and expecting full assimilation within a couple of generations is wishful thinking. But basically the point is - it did create, and does create friction within modern states, the US included.

                  Originally posted by Salinator View Post
                  Good point. I would like to add that a country such as China only managed to survive and reunite over and over again because of over two thousand years of homogenization. Even those that conquered her went through sinicization. Here in America that similar process somehow seemed be frowned upon due to strange progressive thinking.
                  China became more homogenous over time because of long term political unity. It's not really surprising. But then again, half the French population in the 17th century didn't even speak French, and I'm not talking colonials. Centralized states teaching common languages, history curriculum and mass dissemination of media all bring together ethnically and formerly linguistically diverse peoples. China didn't have those benefits until recently, but it did have the benefit of a very long time under more or less common rule. But of course, even today there are ethnic and linguistic divides in China.

                  As to your comments about those who conquered her, they tended to be a small subset of larger nomadic populations that were basically installing themselves onto the top of a pre-existing power structure. Their children and grandchildren became more or less Chinese, but this is not because of some ancient forgotten assimilation technique that we have lost touch with, it is just the realities of being a miniscule minority in a vast country you just became king of. The Mongols didn't disappear anywhere, the mongols didn't "assimilate" into the Chinese culture, its just that some of their more successful leaders became Chinese rulers. The situations simply aren't comparable to large scale emigration.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X