Ethnic/Religious Division - Is it good?

[LSJ]

As the thread title, says, give your opinion on ethnic/religious division in the world and if it is better or worse than multiculturalism or a melting pot.

Examples of what I mean:
Zionism - creating of Israel as a state for the Jews
Kurdistan - giving Kurds their own country in North Iraq
Khalistan - proposed Sikh state in North India
or Lets divide Canada into French nation and English nation, divide USA into Spanish nation, Catholic nation, etc...

That means instead of encouraging cultural unity and multiculturalism or a melting pot, people of different cultures/religions would have their own country.
Apart from the political/ethical issues, such as displacement of native populations, stealing land from other countries, and the conflicts that follow (as we saw after the creation of Israel).

Ignoring those immidiate political issues, would that make safe havens for each religious group, having a single identity, or would it divide us in a bad way, for example, prejudice towards people who aren't of the nation's official religion, or general issues because instead of USA vs Iraq it becomes Catholics vs Sunnis...
Or other problems I haven't written here.

Feel free to discuss - but please don't make this into a thread devoted solely to arguing over Israel - however you can include it in a discussion of course.

[RusskiSoldat]

No.
The ultimate goal of the human race should be unity, and any and all petty divisions should be disregarded.

Question: if the society had one race, how could it deport a race from it's homeland?

[MaximiIian]

No.
The ultimate goal of the human race should be unity, and any and all petty divisions should be disregarded.

What he said. Humanity should be united, not divided, through its diversity. It is the variety that makes our species so versatile and great. We should embrace and accept our differences rather than scorn them.
Menschheit, Vorwärts!

[Bwaho]

give your opinion on ethnic/religious division in the world and if it is better or worse than multiculturalism or a melting pot.

A country with a homogenous population have a much better base from which to build a stable country from. Humans are a social being that needs a group or flock (pack or whatever it's called). A human wants to find a group it can identify itself with.

Of course it isn't impossible for a multicultural society to exist, but it is less stable.

or would it divide us in a bad way, for example, prejudice towards people who aren't of the nation's official religion

don't we have that already?

[mongoose]

Of course it isn't impossible for a multicultural society to exist, but it is less stable.

It's only less stable when biogted people from different races are forced to live in the same country.

[wilpuri]

It's only less stable when biogted people from different races are forced to live in the same country.

Yeah, its all about prejudices and fear of the unknown. It is a god send that the contact theory works, right? Oops.

[mongoose]

Yeah, its all about prejudices and fear of the unknown.

Yes. If you believe that all races are equal, then the only thing preventing them from living in the same country with be irrational prejudices.

[wilpuri]

Yes. If you believe that all races are equal, then the only thing preventing them from living in the same country with be irrational prejudices.

Aha. What about if the prejudices are founded on things like rampant criminality? Is that an irrational prejudice? What do you see as the major reason contributing to the failure of multiculturalism in Europe?

[the Eternal Cocoon]

As the thread title, says, give your opinion on ethnic/religious division in the world and if it is better or worse than multiculturalism or a melting pot.

Examples of what I mean:
Zionism - creating of Israel as a state for the Jews
Kurdistan - giving Kurds their own country in North Iraq
Khalistan - proposed Sikh state in North India
or Lets divide Canada into French nation and English nation, divide USA into Spanish nation, Catholic nation, etc...

That means instead of encouraging cultural unity and multiculturalism or a melting pot, people of different cultures/religions would have their own country.
Apart from the political/ethical issues, such as displacement of native populations, stealing land from other countries, and the conflicts that follow (as we saw after the creation of Israel).

Ignoring those immidiate political issues, would that make safe havens for each religious group, having a single identity, or would it divide us in a bad way, for example, prejudice towards people who aren't of the nation's official religion, or general issues because instead of USA vs Iraq it becomes Catholics vs Sunnis...
Or other problems I haven't written here.

Feel free to discuss - but please don't make this into a thread devoted solely to arguing over Israel - however you can include it in a discussion of course.

you should not put idealogical and racial into the same question. idealogicaly, people should be divided ( not forcefully of course). Any government is based on the consent of its people. The consent of its people is based on their ideas of what a proper government should be. Those ideas are based on their idealogical build, I'm considering something like capitalism or communism as part of Religion or ideology, as it is is built on the same moral fabric as religion ( a collectivist religion cannot be a capitalistic nation, as the two have conflicting moral prerogatives). So two peoples of different ideologies under the same government will lead to internal problems that will result in either civil war or inefficiency ( for example the american civil war, which resulted from a idealogical schism in society). If some people believe in capitalism, they should not be forced into a communist country, and visa versa. There can be no such thing as a melting pot of idealogy, as for the most part it results in civil war, dis functionality.

[Erik]

The way I see it:

Highly successful society that matters to the world and the big scheme of things = multi-cultural society.
Slightly backward society of little importance except to provide goods and services for above society = mono-cultural society.

Let's just say I'm happy I live in Amsterdam, not in some inland agricultural village.
I can understand why farmers are so scared of foreign cultures, but it's not really their concern.

[wilpuri]

The way I see it:
Slightly backward society of little importance except to provide goods and services for above society = mono-cultural society.

Sounds like Japan!

[Ummon]

The way I see it:

Highly successful society that matters to the world and the big scheme of things = multi-cultural society.

We see this society successful and in full triumph everywhere...

[Tom Paine]

Like Africa you mean... or maybe more like the USA, a multicultural meltingpot and the prime player in world affairs?

[Ummon]

Africa has an absolute lack of success. The US is in imminent danger of collapse. Besides, the US is a multi-cultural society like the Roman Empire was, with a strong common ideal uniting it. In this sense, I am afraid the definition doesn't apply well. A melting-pot is not a multi-cultural society. A melting pot infact melts and combines individualities, while a multicultural society leaves them as they are.

[Tom Paine]

Africa isn't really multicultural, when we get down to it.
The USA doesn't really have any overall common ideals, in the end; not even democracy or tolerance given the number who are anti either or both of those in America. There is no common ideal. The reason for its imminent collapse by the by is unrelated to its multiculturalism but more to its reliance on foreign nations for its economic wellbeing.

[Ummon]

Africa isn't really multicultural, when we get down to it.

Nigeria isn't multicultural? Many ethnic groups, three religions (Animism, Islam, Christianism)?

South Africa isn't multicultural?

Etc.

[Tom Paine]

Not really. Not any more. Once, South Africa was multicultural but the apartheid business made it bicultural and it has remained that way.

[wilpuri]

Not really. Not any more. Once, South Africa was multicultural but the apartheid business made it bicultural and it has remained that way.

Are you kidding? Africa is like the "worst case scenario" of multiculturalism gone wrong.

[Ummon]

Would you post evidence of this? I ask because I have different data.

[Tom Paine]

You have racial and supposed religious data. but to take the example of the UK, the people who do things like attend church fall far short of the people who claim to be Christian, and its the former not the latter that shows culture.