Remove this Banner Ad

History Multiculturalism in history - any examples?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Firstly it wasnt OK because the Germans were 'white'.

Secondly ultra nationalism is a cancer based on a lie that has never been succesfull, never will be, and leads to genocide and war.

Clowns like you that support it are beyond contempt.

lol at it again, i dont support ultra nationalism. Check where your greenie socialist marxist ways lead, genocide and war! Even if i did id be a minority group..... you have to defend me Mal. Dont be a bigot lol, ive never killed anyone.
 
lol at it again, i dont support ultra nationalism. Check where your greenie socialist marxist ways lead, genocide and war! Even if i did id be a minority group..... you have to defend me Mal.Dont be a bigot lol, ive never killed anyone.

Im neither a Marxist nor a Socialist, and even if I was, neither leads to genoicide and war any more or less than Capitalism.

Im not sure you understand nationalism R00.

Start here:

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society.[1] There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.

Me:

Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.[32] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 "What is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily referendum" (frequently translated 'daily plebiscite") dependent on the will of its people to continue living together".[32]

Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[33] Ernest Renan[34] and John Stuart Mill[35] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[36] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly

You:

Ultranationalism is a zealous nationalism that expresses extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized by authoritarianism, efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or oppression of non-native populations or minorities within the nation or its territories, demagoguery of leadership, emotionalism, fomenting talk of presumed, real, or imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the native, dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group, instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement, efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevalent ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in national politics. In its extremist forms ultranationalism is characterized as a call to war against enemies of the nation/state, secession or, in the case of ethnocentrist ultranationalism, genocide
See if you can spot the differences.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

A good example is in Ireland.

When the Normans invaded Ireland rather than just imposing their culture upon the natives they also absorbed the native peoples cultures.

From that point on the very Norman families that had invaded Ireland actually became some of the most ferocious defenders of the native culture.
 
Why is it that lefties can't understand that a nationalist and a white supremacist skinhead nazi are not the same thing?

It's the same as saying muslim = terrorist.
 
Why is it that lefties can't understand that a nationalist and a white supremacist skinhead nazi are not the same thing?

Define your type of 'nationalism'.

There are many types.

Although most of them are simple flag waving and cheerleading for a chosen 'nation' (a fictional construct) usually based on adherance to a cultural, ethnic or racial 'norm'.

Liberals and libertarians tend to stay well away for many solid (and historically demonstrable) reasons.
 
Not sure if this one has been mentioned (saw no need to skip through what would likely be 5 pages of R00's idiocy), but pretty much all the evidence gathered since the 60's about the Indus Valley civilization points to successful multicultural intermingling rather than the typical war of conquest scenario favoured by ultra-nationalist Indians.
 
Not sure if this one has been mentioned (saw no need to skip through what would likely be 5 pages of R00's idiocy), but pretty much all the evidence gathered since the 60's about the Indus Valley civilization points to successful multicultural intermingling rather than the typical war of conquest scenario favoured by ultra-nationalist Indians.
There were numerous examples given.
Nth and Sth America, Nepal, Europe, etc.
Some chose to not acknowledge them.
 
Not sure if this one has been mentioned (saw no need to skip through what would likely be 5 pages of R00's idiocy), but pretty much all the evidence gathered since the 60's about the Indus Valley civilization points to successful multicultural intermingling rather than the typical war of conquest scenario favoured by ultra-nationalist Indians.

None of them were Muslims.

Derp.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I'm a bird lover. I feed a range of wild birds that come onto my property. Recently I decided to build a cage and place hawks with doves, parrots with magpies, seagulls with chickens, owls with wagtails. Why am I going to do that? Because I believed all birds are equal and that they should all learn to live together in harmony and be respecting of each other. As time goes by I'm finding most have died from stress while others attack and feed off them, but I'm just going to keep placing and replacing them all in the same cage without end because I'm so certain that what I believe, will one day become a reality. I know I'm right because after all, all birds are the same.
Possibly the worst analogy ever.

As a person with a background in the biological sciences I am disturbed by your ignorance/stupidity.
 
Possibly the worst analogy ever.
As a person with a background in the biological sciences I am disturbed by your ignorance/stupidity.
Newbie looking to make an impact with a 'telling troll', methinks. Judging by the text in his post, it was clipped from somewhere else and dropped in as is - without comment, analysis or intelligence.
 
looking over this website, i get impression maybe the real troll is upton, with his non stop posting, you accuse others of being trolls, but maybe you all should sheet home to upton being the real troll on this forum
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Possibly the worst analogy ever.

As a person with a background in the biological sciences I am disturbed by your ignorance/stupidity.

No. For analogical purposes the nature of the difference is irrelevant i.e. biology vs culture. With this post you've simply demonstrated that you don't know what an analogy is.

In fact, it could be argued the analogy works best when the analogous example is more distant from the object example, whilst still incorporating the concept(s) being demonstrated. So in this case the poster's error, if anything, was using an example too close the object. (you may wish to blame your error on this point)
 
No. For analogical purposes the nature of the difference is irrelevant i.e. biology vs culture. With this post you've simply demonstrated that you don't know what an analogy is.

In fact, it could be argued the analogy works best when the analogous example is more distant from the object example, whilst still incorporating the concept(s) being demonstrated. So in this case the poster's error, if anything, was using an example too close the object. (you may wish to blame your error on this point)


No. It's a stupid analogy. Birds don't flock together (so to speak) because they enjoy the company of birds who share common traits, they do it because it's a biological necessity, it is absolutely not analogous to human behaviour. Humans have a long, long history of multicultural mingling whereas birds demonstrably do not intermingle with other species, there simply isn't any parallel to draw.
 
No. It's a stupid analogy. Birds don't flock together (so to speak) because they enjoy the company of birds who share common traits, they do it because it's a biological necessity, it is absolutely not analogous to human behaviour. Humans have a long, long history of multicultural mingling whereas birds demonstrably do not intermingle with other species, there simply isn't any parallel to draw.

It doesn't matter why they are together, the point is they are together and they don't get along.

Let me clarify. In the ANALOGY they don't get along.

Your disagreement with that point is to disagree with the argument presented, that does not make his/her analogy incorrect which was raised to demonstrate THEIR argument.

Plus I'll add, humans have a long, long history of beating the #### out of people from different cultures.
 
It doesn't matter why they are together, the point is they are together and they don't get along.

Right. And human history is littered with examples where different cultures HAVE gotten along quite amicably. Hence, the analogy is flawed.

Plus I'll add, humans have a long, long history of beating the #### out of people from different cultures.

And humans have a long history of intermingling and living together in an amicable way too. We have a demonstrated history of doing both, unlike different species of birds.
 
Your disagreement with his/her argument, or an underlying presumption of it, doesn't invalidate his analogy, which was a correct presentation of his argument.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

History Multiculturalism in history - any examples?


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top