Should governments/countries adopt multicultural policies?
Debate Rounds (4)
"Multiculturalism is the cultural diversity of communities within a given society and the policies that promote this diversity. As a descriptive term, multiculturalism is the simple fact of cultural diversity and the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometimes at the organizational level, e.g., schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities, or nations. As a prescriptive term, multiculturalism encourages ideologies and policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization."
It is important to note this policy not only allows diversity, but encourages it.
I will take the con position, that governments should not promote multiculturalism. And indeed that multiculturalism is not ideologically or morally superior.
I will essentially argue governments everywhere should favor immigration of only peoples who are most similar racially and culturally to their majority citizenry. Or peoples who do not have major impacts on racial and cultural demographics. The reason I say both race and culture instead of only culture is that the two are intimately related. Greater racial diversity inevitably leads to greater cultural, and part of the 'demographic diversity' in the wiki definition would include race.
First round is for acceptance. Please abide by my one request.
While many will assume me a racist and bigot off the bat I must disagree. I grew up in an extremely liberal environment and consider myself a rationalist above all. My arguments will not be based on hate or ignorance, but on national welfare and fairness. And truth be told many of my closest friends are different races than I.
I look forward to a polite well reasoned debate.
In addition, there seems to be no real strong arguement that demonstrates any tangible net benefit to multiculturalism for the embracing country. But only for those who immigrate.
I take the con position based on the following fact; a government's responsibility and prioirity is to protect the interests of its citizens. And has no responsibility to anyone else when these things conflict with this primary responsibility. This is based on the social contract theory of jean-Jacques Rousseau that is the modern philosophical basis of a government's authority over its people. Only by acting in the interest of its citizenry does a government have the right to their loyalty, and the right to authority.
The only arguement really in favor of multicultralsim is that of equal opportunity. Or in other words; respect for others. Others in this case being non-citizens of the given state.
However, this cannot not justify multiculturalism since equal oppurtunity of non-citizens cannot supercede the overridng priorities of the government towards its own already citizen-population based on the social contract theory. As any policy that damages or undermines the interests of the already citizen population undermines the legitimacy and basis of authority of the government.
For this argument to be valid, I must show that multicultralism is damaging to the country's welfare as a whole, and therefore it's citizens. I will now list the arguments for this claim.
1. Multicultralism destroys civic activity and the national society. According to harvard law professor Philip D. Putnam writes:
"We hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it"s not just that we don"t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don"t even trust people who don't look like us."
Multicultralism causes people to become less active in civic society or their community. Multicultralism by these reasearches has been shown to lower peoples interest in public welfare, ethnologist Frank Salter writes:
"Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States... find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure.... A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogenous cities."
By damaging the ability of a country's society to work together the country in question is clearly at a disadvantage compared to societies where there is more cohesiveness. In a less diverse society people are more likely to find common ground and people are more likely to sacrifice for the general good of the nation. Over time this can erode the civic and even physical infrastructure as all people become less willing to invest themselves and become more selfish. Paving the way to national decline, or degradation. This phenomena helps explains the dramatic decline in the quality of public education as diversity has risen.
2. Multicultralism has been observed to create 'parallel societies' as evidenced by the nature of culturally and ethincally similar people to congregate poltically and geogrpahically into certain places/positions. Parallel socities create disunity, which causes paralzying effects to a democracy, and can incapacitate the government at crucial moments leading to a country's decline or failure. As even homogenous democratic countries can suffer from a painfully slow democratic process, adding more differences with multiculralism threatens to make this problem chronic. And at its most extreme, can lead to failure of the democratic process and render democracy unworkable. Especially in time of crisis
Moreover, parallel societies creates 5th columns that can be politically exploited by any potential enemy of the given state. Parallel societies are a clear liability for any country.
3. Legal philospher Paul Clituer has rejected all political correctness of multicultralism. He cites that undeniable moral superiority of western culture in things like democracy, human rights, and rules of law are much more important and correct than those of other cultures that place little or no traditonal value in such concepts. He argues multicultralism is a form of cultural relativsm, meaning it is simply accepted in the relevant context but it fundementally wrong in the same way the KKK, Joseph Stalin, and Pol pot were all cultrally accepted at one point as relative to the culture of the time, but are instrinscally wrong. And recognized as such now, but not in the past.
4. Multicultralism is imbalanced and unfair. It allows the people of non-multicultural countries to keep their identity, culture, and ethnicity while eroding those of others. Multiculturalism is either considered a result of, or the cause of, white guilt.
This has lead to double standards that are principally unfair, unjust, and psychologically damaging. The black men can brag they are good dancers, the asians that they are good at studying and grades, but if the whites brag they built succesful civilizations, or are responisble for modern world's wonders, they are racist. In fact, bragging about anyhting attributable to white people is often denounced racist. Thus creating the very real concept of white guilt in the process. When in reality, is this not a form of racism in itself?
Also, the 'equal oppurunity' of multicultralism does not go both ways. Most countries are not multicultural, or welcoming of other ethnicites living permanetly among them, and many make it near impossible to immigrate there. In the global sense, there is no equal opprtunity in multiculturalim until the world accepts multicultralism and not only a few states. It seems unfair, since there is little to suggest if in the future other countries become centers of prosperity they will allow us to immigrate there as we have so allowed them here.
5. A defense of multicultralism often centers of how immigrants group together and fail to assimilate because, as journalist Ed West writes,
"immigrants prefer to stick together because of racism and the fear of racial violence, as well as the bonds of community. This is perfectly reasonable, but if this is the case, why not the same for natives too?
If multiculturalism is right because minorities feel better among themselves with their own culture, why have mass immigration at all? All the arguments for multiculturalism - that people feel safer, more comfortable among people of the same group, and that they need their own cultural identity - are arguments against immigration, since English people must also feel the same way."
Ultimately any defense of the results of a multicultral society goes both ways. And it cannot be reasoned otherwise without considerable hypocrisy and double standards.
6. In times of social collapse, multiculturalism is dangerous.
For an example one only needs to look at Yugoslavia and the USSR. Both were multicultural societies that early on made almost no distinctions between different peoples. As the ideology these societies were based upon collapsed, multiculralism became a source of tensions and catalyst for an ethnic conflict/war that eventually lead to the decline and disintegration of both nations. This shows that during a time of crises, collapse, chaos, or emergency multicultralsim can manifest into open conflict that disintegrates the nation into bands of tribes.
The point is that if democracy in the Us or UK were to suffer a political crisis that collapsed the government, there is no guarantee racial conflicts would not erupt as they have in other diverse countries when the binding political order collapses. In a sense, mutlicultarlism lays the foundation for very bitter ethnic struggles that can turn destructive and violent in times of crisis. Because it is observable during such times many individuals, and ethnic groups, develop an 'Everyman for himself' attitude. And often fragment across racial or cultural lines.
Even now with the ferguson related riots we can see many people are jumping at gut instinct reactions often based on racial perspective. A major political crisis that pits two different cultural/racial groups against one another, where their differences are irreconcilable based in their basic identities, could lend political conflict a cultural/racial character that can not be resolved politically as the interest of the different parties directly competes. When politics, democracy,and diplomacy fail violent conflict almost always ensues.
7. Thomas Sowell. I almost feel this man is a rebuttal of multiculturalism in and of himself. A black man who was so isolated in black neighborhoods that at he age of 10 he did not even believe blond was a real hair color, but a myth. And yet he become a black conservative who has denounced multiculturalism and things like affirmative action. He is one of the most recognized economists in the US and holds honors at Columbia, Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago University. If this exceptionally intelligent man sees something very wrong with multiculturalism, when any white would have been tarred and feathered as a racist, doesn't it seem as though here is something deeply wrong? A gross double standard?
I as Pro will be arguing in favor of the resolution, "Should governments/countries adopt multicultural policies?" My opponent has chosen to engage in spreading providing many points.
Multiculturalism:"Relating to or containing several cultural or ethnic groups within a society"
Localism:"Preference for one's own area or region, especially when this results in a limitation of outlook"
Sectionalism:"Restriction of interest to a narrow sphere; undue concern with local interests or petty distinctions at the expense of general well-being"
Regionalism:"The theory or practice of regional rather than central systems of administration or economic, cultural, or political affiliation"
"While many will assume me a racist and bigot off the bat I must disagree. I grew up in an extremely liberal environment and consider myself a rationalist above all."
All of my arguments will be illiberal or aliberal too many including yourself.
"In addition, there seems to be no real strong arguement that demonstrates any tangible net benefit to multiculturalism for the embracing country."
See Argument #1.
"I take the con position based on the following fact; a government's responsibility and prioirity is to protect the interests of its citizens. And has no responsibility to anyone else when these things conflict with this primary responsibility. This is based on the social contract theory of jean-Jacques Rousseau that is the modern philosophical basis of a government's authority over its people. Only by acting in the interest of its citizenry does a government have the right to their loyalty, and the right to authority."
That is not a fact, it is opinion by Con and his view of Jean Jaceques Rousseau's thoughts on social contracts. Also depending on the size of the country, nation, or state, it must embrace localism, regionalism, or sectionalism which are inherently forms of multiculturalism. Therefore a society must protect all persons living in that state according to Con's line of thought. I explain this more in Arument #1.
"The only arguement really in favor of multicultralsim is that of equal opportunity. Or in other words; respect for others."
Wrong, that is not the only argument. See Argument #1.
"Multicultralism destroys civic activity and the national society"
Con did not support this with any data.There is no reason for us to subscribe to the belief that multiculturalism destroys civic society. Either way, correlation is not causation. My opponent did not offer us any evidence definitively that proves multiculturalism destroys civic activity and/or national society. Only in one of the quotes, there was a mention of case studies but no evidence. Either way, Frank Salter did not offer any facts in the quote that Con used. We are left with Con's opinion and speculation.
"Multicultralism has been observed to create 'parallel societies' as evidenced by the nature of culturally and ethincally"
Again, I would state this is theoretical and has yet to be proven by Con. I would state emphatically, that is relative to the ethnicity and what society. Some ethnic groups are more inclined to assimilate while others will chose to remain separate. For example, in the United States, I would argue German Protestants were far more likely to assimilate in America in the 19th century compared to Irish Catholics or German Catholics.
"Legal philospher Paul Clituer has rejected all political correctness of multicultralism. "
Appeal to authority fallacy and this is just Clituer's opinions not facts. We can't refute someone's personal opinions. It is Clituer's opinion that western culture has "undeniable superiority." Also that is an equivocacy to compare multiculturalism to KKK, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot. Did the KKK not want a monocultural society of White Anglo Saxon Protestants? Do Communists like Josef Stalin and Pol Pot not subscribe to democratic centralism? he group and the persons Con mentioned were/are against multiculturalism.
"Multicultralism is imbalanced and unfair. It allows the people of non-multicultural countries to keep their identity, culture, and ethnicity while eroding those of others. Multiculturalism is either considered a result of, or the cause of, white guilt."
This is just conjecture on the part of Con. Who determines what is "fair" and "imbalanced?" If he thinks he does, I will simply retort that is not fair.
"A defense of multicultralism often centers of how immigrants group together"
Strange, I normally think that immgration is usually one of the normative attacks on multiculturalism
"In times of social collapse, multiculturalism is dangerous."
This is just opinion on the part of Con, I would ask him to substantiate this point with evidence.
" Thomas Sowell."
Appeal to authority fallacy.
I will post my main argument next round because I don't have enough characters left to post it. The above is just the sample of what I have already done. I will not rebuttal my opponent's points next round because I am sure I won't have enough characters left.
I find a proper, even polite, opening argument is to state all the points of your position instead of ambushing your opponent with them towards the middle/end of a debate. If I have many points that should be because they're all relevant to my argument.
As stated in round 1 this debate will be based in the more comprehensive definition of multiculturalism as per Wikipedia. Since the expanded definition includes your single sentence definition and much more I do not see why this should be a problem.
"All of my arguments will be illiberal or aliberal"
Then you have my respect; as it is very common for many to avoid the real debate by braying the word racist. This seems especially true of many knee-jerk liberals.
"it is opinion by Con and his view of Rousseau's social contracts....Therefore a society must protect all persons living in that state according to Con"
I agree, that if possible, a state should protect all of its citizens.
However, it is clear that the social contract theory does not prevent the state from favoring the welfare of certain citizens over others. If it did, then the state would never be able to justify prisons, or treatment of criminals. I by no means mean to equate immigrants/diversity to criminals, and I sincerely apologize if it appears so.
I mean to point out that there are clear, commonly accepted, instances where some citizens are mistreated for the sake of societal/national welfare. Nor does this especially conflict with the social contract theory, as part of protecting the interests of citizens should include promoting the overall national welfare. Thus the social contract theory can fully condone the mistreatment of some citizens. Mistreatment is not what I suggest; but I feel this example does lend my articulation of the social contract credence.
What I suggest is not the mistreatment of any citizens. Instead I advocate that immigration policy be tailored to benefit the overall national welfare; whatever that policy may be in practice. Indeed this policy will vary from country to country.
As I list arguments that show diversity/multiculturalism can damage the national welfare; then the immigration policy I am suggesting would imply favoring those who assimilate best into the majority culture and citizenry to provide the net benefits of a more homogenous society. What I suggest is really not so different than promoting socio-economic equality that is often considered moral as it promotes the most overall national welfare. I believe all I suggest is immigration policy be tuned to a similar effect. I believe doing so would help promote social and economic equality in the process. (Better public education)
I do not propose the mistreatment of minorities, but I do propose that allowing more diversity would in fact harm the entire nation collectively. Including the minorities already living here. Therefore I am not proposing anything that harms the interest of minorities unless their chief interest is to not be a minority. In which case I would say what we have is not immigration, but colonization. Something every people and nation in history have resisted and no one has ever questioned whether this resistance was morally correct. Clearly it is. Else we would not lament the fate of the native Americans and we would not feel sympathy for the plight of Palestinians or Tibetans who are suffering a similar ordeal.
"See Argument #1"
It would appear the nature of the social contract is pivotal to your rebuttals. This does not rebut the arguments that multiculturalism is damaging to the overall national welfare. These arguments are still relevant, and as i reasoned above while they are relevant so too is my usage of the social contract theory to justify my position against multiculturalism.
"There is no reason for us to believe that multiculturalism destroys civic society...My opponent did not offer any evidence that proves multiculturalism destroys civic activity"
I find my opponents comments disingenuous. I directly quoted the conclusion of the Putnam study, which was a thorough survey of over 30,000 people by a very respected Harvard scholar.
Putnam traces the decline of what he calls 'social capital' through a variety of variables and does so too well to say there is no evidence. My opponent should have done a google search in order examine Putnam's work before claiming there is no evidence. Ditto for Salter, whose research you can find at researchgate.net.
I do not find it reasonable for my opponent to pretend these men are making baseless claims without research while their research has earned them positions at the highest academic/intellectual levels. I cannot cite the books directly since I cannot copy/paste; and going into detail is not possible as I already struggle to stay within the character limit. If my opponent has a problem with the research I encourage him to point it out specifically. A copy/paste google search and you will find them.
If 1 or 2 books by ivy scholars is not enough, maybe a 3rd is? I mentioned T. Sowell, he also has a book, Intellectuals & Race, which cites statistical evidence and surveys that multiculturalism is responsible for the decline of civic society in the US.
Aside from books/research, one only needs to look for examples in Europe/east Asia for an example of how more homogenous societies have much higher levels of investment in public infrastructure and public education. Nor should it be lost on anyone that in the 1950s the US also had world class public education and infrastructure, and how these things has declined as diversity has risen. How much correlation is needed before it becomes fact? This is a topic that is near taboo in the US; the lack of more studies can be blamed on how our society shies away from these questions. And how those who do not shy away are often tarred/feathered by knee jerk liberals who dictate what is 'politically correct.'
"this is theoretical and has yet to be proven by Con...Some ethnic groups are more inclined to assimilate while others will chose to remain separate"
Do you really suggest things like Chinatown/little Tokyo, or any ethnically engendered neighborhoods are just theoretical? The fact some ethnic groups assimilate almost flawlessly and others barely assimilate at all is in large parts the basic problem of multiculturalism. And it based on such things the immigration policy I propose should be tailored around.
"Authority fallacy...just Clituer's opinions...We can't refute someone's personal opinion. It is...opinion that western culture has undeniable superiority"
If you wish you could make morals the subject of cultural opinion. If you choose to do so you would be willing to accept anything that is acceptable anywhere. So what say you on the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? Acceptable here in the US? Morally correct?
The problem is there are serious contradictions between what is considered acceptable in different places, and what is acceptable at different times in history. My point is that multiculturalism is just another example of something morally wrong even if we have not learned to recognize it.
"is an equivocacy to compare multiculturalism to KKK, Joseph Stalin/Pol Pot.Did the KKK not want a monocultural society... Do Communists like Josef Stalin and Pol Pot not subscribe to...The group and the persons Con mentioned are against multiculturalism."
I do not see this as relevant to my argument. The KKK was wrong because it would deny human rights to American citizens/one of its favorite past times was lynching people. Pot/Stalin were wrong for the megalomaniacal, Mass murdering, dictatorship tendencies they shared.
My point is that at one point these things were all considered culturally acceptable in their time period. The 29th president of the US was a clan member, and Harry Truman had close relations to the clan. Stalin/pot were once considered heros by their own people, and now seen for the monsters they really were.
"Who determines what is fair? If he thinks he does, I will simply retort that is not fair."
Definition of fairness; the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable.
Current immigration trends are not a two way street; westerners are not flooding other countries with immigrants. The culture and government policy of most of the non-western countries we receive immigrants from do not make significant counter-migration possible.
As I said, the net effect of this is that other countries are allowed to keep their cultural/ ethnic identity, while those of western countries is eroded. It seems clear to me there is no equal treatment going on here. Thus as per the definition of fairness the results of multiculturalism are completely unfair to western people.
I have reached my character limit, my original draft was 13,000+ characters! I will respond to the remaining points next round.
My opponent has offered his many opinions based on theories which ignore or deny history. An opinion is valid as the dream we all had last night. It can't be refuted nor denied because it is not true to us. Facts on the other hand are definitive and can be measured by all. I will seek to offer the definitive facts that can't be refuted nor denied but must be acknowledged.
#1. Empires today, Empires of Yesteryear, Empires in the Future
Majority of the great civilizations in the history of the known world were empires. Empires are inherently multicultural. Empires have contributed far more to to human progress than any monocultural society. It does not matter if we are discussing the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Mughal Empire, the British Empire, or even modern America because they were/are all multicultural. The United States, the most dominant country in the modern world is a multi-ethnic state. The most dominant countries have been multi-ethnic bodies.
The mono-cultural states are relatively stable, less powerful, and less advanced compared to multi-ethnic states. Who has advanced history and technological progress more, nations or empires? The longest lasting state(not nation) in recorded human history was the Roman Empire, a multi-ethnic state(27 BC-330 BC). The most successful empire in recent history, was the British empire, another multi-ethnic state. Which ultimately cultivated in English being the dominate trade language in the world today. In the current global narrative continues, in the future the most dominant countries in the world will only be multi-ethnic states(United States, Russia, Brazil, India, China) due to their higher populations.
1A. Multi-Ethnic States
Multi-ethnic states can succeed when those in power represent multiple ethnicities. This is why the United States has been successful because the political system encourages cooperation(winner takes all) rather than division(proportional representation). The United States supports a two party system which prevents racialists, language extremists, religious extremists, and other extremes from ever retaining control. In order for someone to win political power in the United States, they must appeal to various elements of the country.
Singapore is another country where multiculturalism works. However, a political system that supports and encourages proportional representation with multiple ethnicities is very likely to fail or become extremely problematic(I.E. Nigeria, Lebanon, India, etc.). People will simply represent the groups they are from rather attempting to be cooperative. The best example of this would be former prime minister Nouri Maliki in Iraq how he supported his fellow Shia Muslims and disarmed and disenfranchised Sunni Muslims(which led to the increase in ISIS numbers).
1B. The United States is a Multicultural Society
The United States controls the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, and is the most dominant country in the modern world with the most hegemony. And the longest reigning monocultural society is San Marino. A country majority of people couldn't find on a map nevertheless they have never even heard of probably. San Marino doesn't even have a notable amount of GDP to list.
In R4 I will address the points I was unable to in R3; ones relevant to Pros 'Empires' argument. I will also show Pros use of the authority fallacy is wrong. Indeed I have provided stronger evidence for my position than Pro has for his.
"Con has offered many opinions based on theories...An opinion is valid as a dream..can't be refuted nor denied"
It may be we cannot refute Pros opinion on empire; and It could also be that Pro will call any example, statistical, or survey analysis I cite mere opinion. But directly quoting Pros source for authority fallacy it says, "This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject." I can show this is not applicable as the authors I have given are very qualified. Therefore my arguments are not mere opinion.
I have provided authors & their evidence who at the very least have much more educated opinions on the subject than Pro; who has not cited any opinion other than his own. In fact these men are so highly regarded that they maybe said to be among the foremost experts in the world. The authors I referenced in R2 include an economist, political scientist, legal philosopher, & ethologist.
Thomas Sowell is "one of the leading representatives of the Chicago school of economics," Robert D. Putnam, like Sowell, is a Harvard prof. and both Sowell/Putnam have won the National Humanities Medal, possibly the highest award in their field. Putnam being awarded by Obama.
"The National Humanities Medal is an American award that annually...for work that has deepened the nation's understanding of the humanities, broadened our citizens' engagement with the humanities, or helped preserve and expand Americans' access to important resources"
Pro has yet to provide any evidence stronger than my own and has not cited any high level scholar or expert. Links to articles on Sowell/Putnam's work and their conclusions below:
"We hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. It’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t even trust people who don't look like us. Putnam's negative effects of multiculturalism include:
Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and local news.
Lower political efficacy, confidence in one's own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, more participation in protest.
Higher political advocacy, lower expectations
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity/volunteering.
Fewer close friends/confidants.
Less happiness/lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television
"You want to see multiculturalism in action? Look at Yugoslavia, at Lebanon, at Sri Lanka, at Northern Ireland, at Azerbaijan, or wherever else group identity has been hyped. There is no point in the multiculturalists' saying that this is not what they have in mind. You might as well open the floodgates and then say that you don't mean for people to drown. Once you have opened the floodgates, you can't tell the water what to do."
Reference arguments from R2, lower investment in public education and infrastructure in multicultural society; paving the way for national decline.
Majority of the great civilizations in the history of the known world were empires...dominant countries have been multi-ethnic."
I propose my opponent is incorrect arguing that empires were multicultural in the sense of Wikipedia/the debate, and that racial diversity/multiculturalism has in fact been the downfall of empires.
In R2 I mentioned the collapse of multi-ethnic recent empires like the USSR and Yugoslavia. Both multiracial empires whose collapse can be directly attributed to their multicultural nature; the USSR being the 3rd largest geographic empire in history that could defeat Hitler, but not multiculturalism. And China suffered the same collapse of communist ideology as the former 2, but was unaffected due to its 91.59% ethnic Han homogeneous society/culture China can be said to have prospered partly thanks to that homogeneity.
Interesting to note that the more mono-ethnic/cultural state Yugoslavia broke into, an even russia, have developed at quicker rate economically & politically compared to world averages and earlier history  Perhaps because they are now less diverse. (russia for example is 81% russian now) Here the conclusion of Putnam and Sowell's work can be again seen at play.
Clearly all the colonial empires collapsed due to multiculturalism. The nationalist home rule movements that ended colonial empires can be seen as a rejection of multiculturalism as they rejected the rule of those of a different culture. If they were multicultural there would have been no need.
Also it is wrong to call colonial empires multicultural; as they did not encourage the domestic culture of natives but would instead oppress it. Often the colonial empires would enforce their own language, religion, and culture on the people they colonized.
Notably, most of the modern develops in science/knowledge from 1600-1900 occurred in the domestic environments of mono-cultural European countries; The European empires were a result of their achievements in science back home and not the other way around as Pro suggests.
While some European countries maybe multiracial it is irrelevant if they are all the same mixed races. It would still be a homogenous society. Almost all Europeans are related to the same key 3 ancient groups. Homogenous society means similarity, as Europeans are a similar mixed race. These ancient ethnic groups of Europe have been mixing for almost 8,000 years. In this sense they are an ethnic group somewhat like Latinos. A mix of different people but still a clear ethnic group unto their own.
Expand the principles of these points to all the ancient empires. The fall of the Roman Empire could also said to be due to the weakening of society/loss of influence of roman culture and the growth of diversity in the late empire compared to earlier.
"a political system that encourages proportional representation with multiple ethnicities is very likely to fail or become extremely problematic(IE. Nigeria, Lebanon, Iraq, India) People will simply represent the groups they are from rather than cooperate"
I agree the only way for a democracy to function with multiculturalism is for people to vote ignoring race. But what possible guarantee can Pro offer that there will not eventually be a political crisis where demographics begin to vote along racial lines? I can cite Obama's election as an example, where 93% of American Americans voted for him. And the ferguson related riots all can show a possible racial edge to conflict in America; not the first racial riots.
If a major socio-economic crisis occurred, like massive devaluation of the dollar, or anything akin to the crises of the USSR, the interest of various cultural groups/ parallel societies in the US could be pitted against each other. The 09 recession could be mild compared to a much more serious crisis that could occur. And if history does repeat itself as is often said; will eventually occur.
See Sowell quote above
"The United States is Multicultural"
I can argue the US was always a homogeneous society through its entire existence up until the late 1980s. Before this time the vast majority of immigrants and the population fell into clear demographics more similar than the diversity of today. All roughly from the same racial-mix, same religious group, similar over arching cultural values, and thus easier assimilated The census has been recording these people as the same group, 'white' since 1850. And has always been an 85%+ demographic up until the 1980s. Today it is below 70%; projection by 2050 below 50%.
The decline in public infrastructure due to diversity argued by Sowell/Putnam can be traced in the US as public education and state infrastructure that has decline as diversity has sky rocketed. And all the success stories of east Asia have been homogenous societies. Refer to R2 for my 7 primary points against multiculturalism for the sake of the national welfare over long term, and therefore the welfare of all citizens of all groups.
Sorry I have to forefeit for unforeseeable reasons. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Very interesting debate. If I were to ignore Pro's request for Con's victory however, my vote would not change. While Pro attacked Con's "opinions" by stating that they were opinions, he did not seem to use many facts to refute these "opinions". Con also had the views of several credible/respected scholars on his side, and Pro did little to refute those. Good debate, very thought-provoking.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.