5 ms·

>Remember that a nation works best when there is a shared culture and a shared language - these things being inseparable - which encourage unity and community.

by trunc 7y ago

>Remember that a nation works best when there is a shared culture and a shared language - these things being inseparable - which encourage unity and community. Which nations are these? Looking at the current major world economies: - US: Federal. Many immigrant communities. English and Spanish. - China: Two major languages, two SARs, each with another official language. "Chinese Tapei" with Hokkien. Regional cultures I'm not familiar with. - EU: 24 languages, made up of multiple countries many of which have multiple official or minority languages. - Japan: Shared culture and language, stagnant economy. - India: Barely half of the country speak the most common language.

corporate_shi11 7y ago
US: English is the de facto national language. Immigrants generally integrate by learning the language and participating in the broader culture. This supports my point. China: China has mandated Mandarin be used on all official television networks, in schools, etc. It has actively worked towards making Mandarin universal precisely because it understands the importance of a single language. EU: These are separate nations. English is the closest thing they have to a common language. The EU is stagnating and fragmenting. Japan: Incredibly low crime and poverty rates, very high standard of living. Japan is one of the best places to live in the world largely because of its unity. India: Fractured and divided linguistically and also politically. Growth has been far less than China, which is more homogenous. Having lots of trouble escaping the middle income trap. These examples just serve to support my point. Research shows that multiculturalism does not help nations and only leads to mutual distrust, increased political partisanship, and a whole host if other problems.
- jhoechtl 7y ago
  I welcome your counterpoints which are unpopular of course. > Research shows that multiculturalism does not help nations and only leads to mutual distrust, increased political partisanship, and a whole host if other problems. Factual proof done by research? Any links?
  - aphextim 7y ago
    Not OP however I remember a Paradox of "Diverse Community" a while back. Googled it and found the old article. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/11/paradox-diverse-commu... Also one more > In longitudinal perspective, an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/2332107 https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/23321...
- magduf 7y ago
  I would argue that the US is experiencing a lot of problems, particularly the rise of Trumpism, because there's now a large contingent of immigrants (many not-so-recent) who don't speak English and have a very different culture. This has stoked a lot of xenophobia, and calls to "build the wall". China is almost all Mandarin. The SARs are really small exceptions and not like the rest of the country (by design). Japan's main problems are a low birthrate, and inefficient business processes (too many people spending too much time at work, but not actually being productive). But still, they have one of the world's leading economies. India is really a mess in a lot of ways, and as you point out, it isn't doing nearly as well as China economically even though it's started out from relatively the same point. There are counterpoints, however. 1) Switzerland. 4 languages, and the country is both economically super-prosperous (per capita) and safe, with the highest standard of living in the world. 2) Canada. 2 main languages (English, French), and standard of living at least as good as neighboring USA. I think the difference is that, in both these places, these countries basically started out with these major languages, and made very conscious decisions early on to accommodate these languages and regional cultures, and to be a place where they could all get along. But even this hasn't been perfect: Quebec has long had a separatist movement.
nicoburns 7y ago
> - EU: 24 languages, made up of multiple countries many of which have multiple official or minority languages. I'd argue that lack of a common language is one of the main factors in the UK leaving the EU. People here (in the UK) don't realise how similar they are to other Europeans, because they can't understand them or their media. This problem is less pronounced for the rest of the EU, because they tend to be better at teaching/learning other languages there.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> "Japan: Shared culture and language, stagnant economy." Somehow ignoring that Japan had a gigantic economic boom in the '70s through the '80s to become the world's 2nd largest economy. Setting aside that relating shared language to economic strength is nonsense anyway, Japan does not bolster your thesis.
derefr 7y ago
I don't know why you picked that list of countries in particular, but in most rankings of countries (by happiness, productivity, social welfare, GDP per capita, etc.) you tend to see several of the nordic countries, which are all quite culturally-homogenous. I would highlight "social welfare" rankings in particular: people seem to vote more for socialist measures—measures that tax them to provide for others—when they care more about those others. If this correlation holds (between lack of cultural diversity and social-welfare leanings), then it would suggest that the cultures that care most about helping their "fellow man" are the ones in which one's "fellow man" is the least different from oneself.

by trunc 7y ago

corporate_shi11 7y ago

US: English is the de facto national language. Immigrants generally integrate by learning the language and participating in the broader culture. This supports my point. China: China has mandated Mandarin be used on all official television networks, in schools, etc. It has actively worked towards making Mandarin universal precisely because it understands the importance of a single language. EU: These are separate nations. English is the closest thing they have to a common language. The EU is stagnating and fragmenting. Japan: Incredibly low crime and poverty rates, very high standard of living. Japan is one of the best places to live in the world largely because of its unity. India: Fractured and divided linguistically and also politically. Growth has been far less than China, which is more homogenous. Having lots of trouble escaping the middle income trap. These examples just serve to support my point. Research shows that multiculturalism does not help nations and only leads to mutual distrust, increased political partisanship, and a whole host if other problems.

jhoechtl 7y ago
I welcome your counterpoints which are unpopular of course. > Research shows that multiculturalism does not help nations and only leads to mutual distrust, increased political partisanship, and a whole host if other problems. Factual proof done by research? Any links?
- aphextim 7y ago
  Not OP however I remember a Paradox of "Diverse Community" a while back. Googled it and found the old article. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/11/paradox-diverse-commu... Also one more > In longitudinal perspective, an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/2332107 https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/23321...
magduf 7y ago
I would argue that the US is experiencing a lot of problems, particularly the rise of Trumpism, because there's now a large contingent of immigrants (many not-so-recent) who don't speak English and have a very different culture. This has stoked a lot of xenophobia, and calls to "build the wall". China is almost all Mandarin. The SARs are really small exceptions and not like the rest of the country (by design). Japan's main problems are a low birthrate, and inefficient business processes (too many people spending too much time at work, but not actually being productive). But still, they have one of the world's leading economies. India is really a mess in a lot of ways, and as you point out, it isn't doing nearly as well as China economically even though it's started out from relatively the same point. There are counterpoints, however. 1) Switzerland. 4 languages, and the country is both economically super-prosperous (per capita) and safe, with the highest standard of living in the world. 2) Canada. 2 main languages (English, French), and standard of living at least as good as neighboring USA. I think the difference is that, in both these places, these countries basically started out with these major languages, and made very conscious decisions early on to accommodate these languages and regional cultures, and to be a place where they could all get along. But even this hasn't been perfect: Quebec has long had a separatist movement.

nicoburns 7y ago

> - EU: 24 languages, made up of multiple countries many of which have multiple official or minority languages. I'd argue that lack of a common language is one of the main factors in the UK leaving the EU. People here (in the UK) don't realise how similar they are to other Europeans, because they can't understand them or their media. This problem is less pronounced for the rest of the EU, because they tend to be better at teaching/learning other languages there.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

> "Japan: Shared culture and language, stagnant economy." Somehow ignoring that Japan had a gigantic economic boom in the '70s through the '80s to become the world's 2nd largest economy. Setting aside that relating shared language to economic strength is nonsense anyway, Japan does not bolster your thesis.

derefr 7y ago

I don't know why you picked that list of countries in particular, but in most rankings of countries (by happiness, productivity, social welfare, GDP per capita, etc.) you tend to see several of the nordic countries, which are all quite culturally-homogenous. I would highlight "social welfare" rankings in particular: people seem to vote more for socialist measures—measures that tax them to provide for others—when they care more about those others. If this correlation holds (between lack of cultural diversity and social-welfare leanings), then it would suggest that the cultures that care most about helping their "fellow man" are the ones in which one's "fellow man" is the least different from oneself.