4 ms·

This is one of the sources I am using for my comments: https://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/0143037757 https://www.amazon.com/Postwar-His

This is one of the sources I am using for my comments: https://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/0143037757 https://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/... Yugoslavia (and all the violence that happened during and post it's collapse) is not a good example of what happens in a heterogeneous countries once the dictator was out. Belgium and the two main areas/languages of it only came to harmony after the prosperity, and it mostly functioned like two countries within a state with almost all the powers to the two separate regions. Ethnic minorities did exist in Europe before the wars, but in the post war period most countries kicked their ethnic minorities out. Catholic and Protestants had to endure centuries of violence (almost as long as the history of the USA itself) together before learning to live together. Sure, after a long long period of assimilation everything can become assimilated together like that. > it's exactly after WW2 that immigration from the colonies to France The immigration to France was almost entirely from Algeria, not multiple colonies. And that too didn't go well and the immigrants faced tons and tons of discrimination. By homogeneous I mean culturally homogenous here. You seem to use the word racist very casually, as if anyone whose opinions sound untrue to you is driven by racism. You also state something as simply untrue yet cite nothing to back such strong claims.

sofixa 3y ago
> Yugoslavia (and all the violence that happened during and post it's collapse) is not a good example of what happens in a heterogeneous countries once the dictator was out. But it is a perfect example of a highly heterogeneous society being quite prosperous (relatively for the Eastern bloc and their starting position, which was a pretty much destroyed country), held together by nothing but a dictator. > Belgium and the two main areas/languages of it only came to harmony after the prosperity, and it mostly functioned like two countries within a state with almost all the powers to the two separate regions It started functioning as two separate countries within a state to an extent only in the 1970s, which is hardly "post-war". Before that the Flemish were discriminated against quite heavily. > Ethnic minorities did exist in Europe before the wars, but in the post war period most countries kicked their ethnic minorities out. Yes, this is your premise, but as I said, it's flat out untrue. Spain didn't kick out Catalans; France didn't kick out Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, various colonial descendants, or the Corsicans; Belgium didn't kick out the Flemish; Yugoslavia didn't kick out the Bosniaks; Italy didn't kick out the Austrians in Tyrol; Bulgaria didn't kick out the Tatars or Turks; Romania didn't kick out the Hungarians, etc etc etc. Your premise is somewhat true in a very narrow geographic region, namely Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland, where mass population transfers occurred. But trying to generalise it to an European wide thing and link prosperity to it is wrong, and yes, does sound like a racist dog whistle, but not because I don't like it, simply because you're trying to link kicking the "others" out to prosperity which is what many far right parties and persons have promised. > The immigration to France was almost entirely from Algeria, not multiple colonies. And that too didn't go well and the immigrants faced tons and tons of discrimination It was mostly from the Magrheb, including Algeria, but also Portugal. And yes they did, so France wasn't homogenous yet was still hugely prosperous? > You also state something as simply untrue yet cite nothing to back such strong claims. The strong claims of basic demographics in multiple European countries? Wasn't aware a source was needed for them, here you go as a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France (Immigration after WW2)

sofixa 3y ago

> Yugoslavia (and all the violence that happened during and post it's collapse) is not a good example of what happens in a heterogeneous countries once the dictator was out. But it is a perfect example of a highly heterogeneous society being quite prosperous (relatively for the Eastern bloc and their starting position, which was a pretty much destroyed country), held together by nothing but a dictator. > Belgium and the two main areas/languages of it only came to harmony after the prosperity, and it mostly functioned like two countries within a state with almost all the powers to the two separate regions It started functioning as two separate countries within a state to an extent only in the 1970s, which is hardly "post-war". Before that the Flemish were discriminated against quite heavily. > Ethnic minorities did exist in Europe before the wars, but in the post war period most countries kicked their ethnic minorities out. Yes, this is your premise, but as I said, it's flat out untrue. Spain didn't kick out Catalans; France didn't kick out Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, various colonial descendants, or the Corsicans; Belgium didn't kick out the Flemish; Yugoslavia didn't kick out the Bosniaks; Italy didn't kick out the Austrians in Tyrol; Bulgaria didn't kick out the Tatars or Turks; Romania didn't kick out the Hungarians, etc etc etc. Your premise is somewhat true in a very narrow geographic region, namely Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland, where mass population transfers occurred. But trying to generalise it to an European wide thing and link prosperity to it is wrong, and yes, does sound like a racist dog whistle, but not because I don't like it, simply because you're trying to link kicking the "others" out to prosperity which is what many far right parties and persons have promised. > The immigration to France was almost entirely from Algeria, not multiple colonies. And that too didn't go well and the immigrants faced tons and tons of discrimination It was mostly from the Magrheb, including Algeria, but also Portugal. And yes they did, so France wasn't homogenous yet was still hugely prosperous? > You also state something as simply untrue yet cite nothing to back such strong claims. The strong claims of basic demographics in multiple European countries? Wasn't aware a source was needed for them, here you go as a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France (Immigration after WW2)