Opinion of quote "Homogeneous societies are happier societies"

[Suburbia]

What do you make of this quote that has been said for a while in discourse lately. "America the experiment is failed. Too diverse. Homogeneous societies like Japan, Poland and Nigeria are happier societies, where one ethnic or racial group is whole".

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

> Homogenous societies

> Nigeria

[Santander]

> Homogenous societies

> Nigeria

Classic bronz.

[John Dule]

[Cokeland Saxton]

HQ

[The Free North]

What do you make of this quote that has been said for a while in discourse lately. "America the experiment is failed. Too diverse. Homogeneous societies like Japan, Poland and Nigeria are happier societies, where one ethnic or racial group is whole".

On what planet is Nigeria homogenous??

Don't remember the exact figure, but aren't there over 100 ethnic groups crammed into the country and thats not to even mention the stark north/south religious divide. I suppose if anything the violence in the north perhaps lends evidence to the point the OP is making, albeit in a very ironic way.

[Suburbia]

Ha ha I don't do this.

[S019]

This is literally a thinly veiled way to support racism. Saying that a nation is "too diverse" is straight out of the white nationalist playbook. Those people who voted freedom quote need to show themselves so that we can rightfully condemn them for having such horrid views.

[John Dule]

This is literally a thinly veiled way to support racism. Saying that a nation is "too diverse" is straight out of the white nationalist playbook. Those people who voted freedom quote need to show themselves so that we can rightfully condemn them for having such horrid views.

It doesn't take a PhD in international relations to understand that countries without significant internal divisions based on race, religion, geography, or language are generally less dysfunctional.

[SteveRogers]

Ha ha I don't do this.

This is literally all you do, and your consistent refusal to accept constructive criticism on this issue is what leads everyone to conclude that your threads are inexplicable by anything but trolling.

[Santander]

This is literally a thinly veiled way to support racism. Saying that a nation is "too diverse" is straight out of the white nationalist playbook. Those people who voted freedom quote need to show themselves so that we can rightfully condemn them for having such horrid views.

It doesn't take a PhD in international relations to understand that countries without significant internal divisions based on race, religion, geography, or language are generally less dysfunctional.

It's one contributing factor. To reduce it down to a statement as bronz has is at best ignorant, but more likely racist.

[Sozialliberal]

South Korea is considered one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in the world and it also has one of the world's highest suicide rates (20.2 suicides per 100,000 people in the year 2016 according to age-adjusted WHO statistics; in comparison: 13.7 in the United States). So I don't think the notion "the more homogeneous, the happier" is true.

[John Dule]

South Korea is considered one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in the world and it also has one of the world's highest suicide rates (20.2 suicides per 100,000 people in the year 2016 according to age-adjusted WHO statistics; in comparison: 13.7 in the United States). So I don't think the notion "the more homogeneous, the happier" is true.

Pure cherrypicking. South Korea is one of the most successful nations on Earth given its history for the past 70 years. I'll take an advanced capitalist nation with a slightly higher suicide rate over ethnic civil war any day.

[Santander]

South Korea is considered one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in the world and it also has one of the world's highest suicide rates (20.2 suicides per 100,000 people in the year 2016 according to age-adjusted WHO statistics; in comparison: 13.7 in the United States). So I don't think the notion "the more homogeneous, the happier" is true.

Pure cherrypicking. South Korea is one of the most successful nations on Earth given its history for the past 70 years. I'll take an advanced capitalist nation with a slightly higher suicide rate over ethnic civil war any day.

How is highlighting the suicide rate when the topic is literally about happiness cherrypicking?

If you only care about "success", the least homogeneous state in western Europe (Switzerland) is also the "most successful". (it was also, of course, not ravaged by war like most of the rest of the continent) Singapore and Israel are also highly successful and heterogeneous states, although it could be argued that their small and vulnerable nature forces social cohesion that transcends cultural differences. The Baltic states are far more economically vibrant and dynamic than Southern Europe, Malaysia and Thailand are more successful than Vietnam or the Philippines, I could go on.

There are challenges that come with ethnic and cultural diversity that highly homogeneous societies don't have to contend with. There can be some opportunities as well - say, trading and diplomatic relations between Malaysia and the Arab world and China - but I will readily concede that the pros never outweigh the cons. That does not mean institutions can't be designed for countries to be stable and functional, or that homogeneity is a particularly good predictor of a country's success. I'm also almost inclined to say that multicultural societies can only work as mosaic societies, with the right institutions, rather than the flawed melting pot theory that infects American minds.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

humans are divisive enough that even in "homogeneous" states (collectivists really reveal how little they think of human individuality, don't they?) they'll find some form of cleavage to divide themselves with.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

All the people that voted "Freedom Quote" need to come out of the shadows and explain themselves.

Why the silence?

[John Dule]

How is highlighting the suicide rate when the topic is literally about happiness cherrypicking?

It's cherrypicking because A) It's one data point, B) He was comparing it to the US specifically (which is the exception to many rules of nation-building) rather than to the world as a whole, and C) Because the suicide rate is not a good metric for measuring a nation's "happiness." Look at this map:



The redder the country is, the higher the suicide rate. Now, if the suicide rate actually corresponded with quality of life, you'd think that Africa was probably the happiest place on Earth, wouldn't you? But the suicide rate is low there because people are dying for a multitude of other reasons. A high suicide rate is obviously a bad thing, but it is far from being a perfect metric of a nation's dysfunction.

Anyway, I agree with the rest of your post, and I obviously do not think that demographically diverse nations are necessarily doomed to failure. But I stand firm in my conviction that Sozialliberal's comment was extremely misleading and bad.

[parochial boy]

If you were to stretch to a generalisation, I think there is a pretty big distinction between those countries that have chosen to be diverse, as opposed to the ones where diversity was imposed. The first category would include the likes of Switzerland, the USA, Canada, Singapore, Israel (although debatable in some of the cases in some ways) that are among the most succesful countries in the world, and all have at least some form diversity as a part of their founding mythology/national identity. On the other hand, the Belgiums or Iraqs, whose heterogenity was broadly speaking imposed on them, have tended to do less well

[John Dule]

If you were to stretch to a generalisation, I think there is a pretty big distinction between those countries that have chosen to be diverse, as opposed to the ones where diversity was imposed. The first category would include the likes of Switzerland, the USA, Canada, Singapore, Israel (although debatable in some of the cases in some ways) that are among the most succesful countries in the world, and all have at least some form diversity as a part of their founding mythology/national identity. On the other hand, the Belgiums or Iraqs, whose heterogenity was broadly speaking imposed on them, have tended to do less well

I think there is also a big difference in terms of geography. The US has internal demographic divisions, but for the most part these divisions don't form significant geographic regions as they do in, say, India. While there are certainly "black neighborhoods" or "Koreatowns" in the US, these various ethnic groups are diffuse throughout the country. This makes it a lot more difficult for separatist movements to form.

To be clear, I'm not promoting ethno-nationalism here. But if "diversity is our strength" were really a universal maxim, then keeping the Kurds locked in a stateless relationship with the Turkish government would be for everyone's mutual benefit in the long run. It is imperative for the survival of historically oppressed minority groups that they be given the opportunity for self-governance, statehood, and land.

[parochial boy]

If you were to stretch to a generalisation, I think there is a pretty big distinction between those countries that have chosen to be diverse, as opposed to the ones where diversity was imposed. The first category would include the likes of Switzerland, the USA, Canada, Singapore, Israel (although debatable in some of the cases in some ways) that are among the most succesful countries in the world, and all have at least some form diversity as a part of their founding mythology/national identity. On the other hand, the Belgiums or Iraqs, whose heterogenity was broadly speaking imposed on them, have tended to do less well

I think there is also a big difference in terms of geography. The US has internal demographic divisions, but for the most part these divisions don't form significant geographic regions as they do in, say, India. While there are certainly "black neighborhoods" or "Koreatowns" in the US, these various ethnic groups are diffuse throughout the country. This makes it a lot more difficult for separatist movements to form.

To be clear, I'm not promoting ethno-nationalism here. But if "diversity is our strength" were really a universal maxim, then keeping the Kurds locked in a stateless relationship with the Turkish government would be for everyone's mutual benefit in the long run. It is imperative for the survival of historically oppressed minority groups that they be given the opportunity for self-governance, statehood, and land.

Switzerland though, does have distinct, and very carefully maintained, linguistic regions. You can argue that the overlapping divisions that are religious, urban-rural, or topgraphical soften the effect; but they are less meaningful these days. Or, as you say, you could argue that the strict delimitation of linguistic regions and local autonomy plays a role. I'm minded to agree to an extent. But, having said that, Belgium has pretty much crapped up trying to the same thing, and Quebec's attempts to do something similar have been all sorts of problematic. So it's not as simple of groups being separate and with a minimum of autonomy. I think it does simply boil down to the fact that the national identity of Switzerland is built on the idea of being a multilingual country, and there is a willingness to make it work.

It works in the same way with ethnic enclaves in the USA too, no matter what you think about immigration as an issue, the USA does have a relation with it's migrant groups where they (historically) have all wanted to make it work. With the various Kurdish minorities across the middle east, or Lebanon, which has it's major issues without any big geographical segregation (and India is complicated as the Muslim population is still pretty mixed in, not many Indian Muslims live in Muslim majority regions) - without pointing fingers at who or what is responsible and to what extent, things haven't really worked out in the same way.

Obviously it's a bit hard off the cuff to create that kind of a culture, which is built out of it's own historical and social contexts and on and on; but it does make out that how succesful a diverse society is dependent on a lot more than the OP wants to suggest

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Apropos of absolutely nothing, in terms of traditional dividing points of religion, language and ethnicity Somalia is one of the most homogeneous countries in Africa.

[I’m not Stu]

That sounds like Steve KKKing.

[Intell]

Societies in where there is a prevailing integrated culture do tend to be happier society- this has nothing to do with race or ethnicity though.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Pakistan is pretty homogeneously Muslim. Clearly a society worth emulating.

Balkanization and sectarian enclaves are good, actually! Separate but equal!

[Escape Pod Zero]

Not an inherently terrible quote until you get to that last part.