Comment by vitally3643
5 days ago
Certain cultures teach that diversity is a bad thing to be feared and extinguished. Diversity is only a good thing when your mind has been poisoned by "education" and "experience".
It requires an open mind to see diverse experiences as a good thing, and certain cultures think having citizens with open minds is an unprofitable way to run a society.
Ok, I take the bait. Which ones?
Just today
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/mandarin-...
Mainland Chinese gov't claims to have 56 official ethnicities in their country. They are certainly celebrated by official media. In particular, they seem to love the southwest portion of the country (Guangxi and Yunnan) with many mountaineous regions and various ethnic groups, mostly because they do not protest the central gov't. Also, look at the coins and bills of yuan -- many different ethnicities.
1 reply →
The one where I live :(
I'm sorry for that. Where?
More approachable framing: tribalism (generally accepted human tendency) is inherently anti-diversity.
Have you never met a pro ICE person from USA?
Is it bait? I'm pretty sure it's a reasonably factual, albeit general claim. Asking chatGPT for country-specific examples for instance gives this:
> Yes—some countries have (at various times, and in some cases still today) adopted policies aimed at making the population more “homogeneous,” through segregation, assimilation pressure, or exclusion/deportation. Concrete examples:
- South Africa (apartheid era, 1948–1990s): An official system of racial classification and enforced separation (“separate development”).
- Germany (Nazi period, 1933–1945): State ideology enforced a racial hierarchy and pursued forced removal and mass murder of those deemed “undesirable.”
- Israel (state policies affecting Palestinian citizens and occupied territory, especially since 1967): Includes laws and administrative practices that many observers describe as producing or enforcing unequal status by group; key issues include citizenship status differences and restrictions tied to national/ethnic identity.
- Myanmar (Rohingya): Policies and law enforcement that stripped/blocked citizenship for Rohingya and enabled persecution, culminating in mass violence and displacement.
- Canada (Indigenous assimilation policy, especially 19th–20th century into 1996): Forced assimilation via residential schools and bans on language/cultural practices; many have characterized this as cultural genocide.
- United States (Jim Crow + earlier immigration/citizenship rules; and internment): Historical legal regimes created segregation and restricted citizenship/naturalization based on race/national origin (e.g., earlier Asian-exclusion immigration restrictions).
You may disagree with some examples on this list, but I'm sure even you would consider that the first two are clear examples of diversity-fearing 'cultures' rather than 'bait'. And this is even before considering the wider definition of the word 'culture', which can be even more exclusionary.
I would edit the US item to remove “historical” given the current efforts to reinstate everything in parentheses and add new ones.
1 reply →
Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
1 reply →
Ok sure. The Home Secretary just banned new asylum seeker housing near schools and nurseries, fyi.
[flagged]
Historically many (predominantly muslim) places in near and middle east have been very diverse, though maybe not exactly the kind of diversity usually conceptualised in the west. If anything, the idea of homogeneous nation states is more like rooted in the enlightenment.
> the idea of homogeneous nation states is more like rooted in the enlightenment.
More precisely the Peace of Westphalia, which was a deal between the crowned heads of Europe to stop rocking the boat, and the absolute opposite of what the Enlightenment wanted since it was designed to consolidate royal political control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia
1 reply →
I think you make an too easy argument: Compared to e.g. Christian places in Europe where people still the same tongue like before the Christianisation (roughly speaking), Aramic, Demotic or Berbic languages, once majority languages are now minority languages in Arabic enviroments. Ironically Aramic and Demotic are spoken mostly by Christian minorities.
Also I see the Islamic movement in recent years pushing for Islamic homogeneous countries and driving ethnic, religious, language and sexual minorities out of their homelands (mainly into Europe).
Compare to today (often secular) European counterparts Arabic nations are homogenous and root cause was Anti enlightenment ideologies.
> If anything, the idea of homogeneous nation states is more like rooted in the enlightenment.
The seeds were planted during the enlightenment period but I believe the raise of nationalism is generally considered post-enlightenment
While this was definitely true historically, it's becoming much less the case. Plenty of minorities have had to flee the Near/Middle East from persecution or genocide. The Middle East has become massively more (orthodox) Muslim in the last hundred years.
[flagged]
2 replies →
I'm fairly sure they were referring to the americans that this post is about
And in the US you can see so many different cultures in one place
This culture they inherited from the British that annihilated the indigenous population compared with the Spanish or Portuguese that breeded with the native population
2 replies →
You’d be surprised how much radical Islam and the American far right have in common.
You look around the world, including the rise of far-right parties across the Western world who talk about the "great replacement" conspiracy theory, and the first example you reach for is Islamic cultures?
Considered that there are organizations like the Taliban and Boko Haram that rule entire countries and regions and have anti-education as a principle, yes it's those cultures that I reach for.