Why multiculturalism almost always fails

For the last few years the prevailing official ideology is that multiculturalism is the best thing ever. According to this belief system, a bunch of different ethnicities all living side by side is presumably a wonderful recipe for all things good. Multiculturalism is used to justify the Browning of America through principally mass immigration. When we have mass immigration of different ethnicities into America, we are told that this diversity will be wonderful for our society.

Of course, there can be at times advantages to living in a multicultural society if conditions are ideal. The food is often very rich and diverse. And, if the groups are functional and rational and can get along, such societies can be culturally rich and successful. A happy example of this is Switzerland, which has managed to create a very successful society out of Germans, French and Italians.

However, the Switzerlands of the world are the rare exceptions to this rule. If we look throughout history, and even today, we find that in the vast majority of cases multicultural societies tend to be highly conflicted societies, for the simple reason that people are inherently tribalistic by nature.  When different tribes live next to one another, they tend to struggle and fight for resources which invariably creates tensions and some degree of conflict. Even prosperous successful countries like Belgium, they can’t get along. Spain has similar problems with its Basque and Catalan regions. We could look upon the terrible multiculturalism of the ex-Yugoslavia, with the Serbs ethnically cleansing the Bosnians and others. Islam tends to have “bloody borders”. All along the edges of the Muslim world, where Muslims come in contact with non-Muslims, there’s often tends to be friction and violence. One only needs to think of the Philippines, China, Thailand, India, Nigeria, Sudan, etc., to see examples of this. Sri Lanka has suffered a terrible civil war, for years on end, because it’s too if they groups and religions cannot get along.

People are more likely — are not guaranteed — to get along when there are sufficient resources and prosperity so there is enough to go around. When resources such as land, food and water becomes scarce, people inevitably fall back onto their tribalistic loyalties and engage in interethnic conflict. A classic example of that Rwanda, where the country was overpopulated and running out of food, so the Hutus took the initiative and decided to resolve their overpopulation problem by massacring the Tutsis. So, even if multiethnic societies can work for a while, if the situation deteriorates, and push comes to shove, we can all be pretty sure that tribal conflict will result.

This should be sobering to us in America. Until now we have been able to ensure a reasonable level of interethnic peace mainly based on the general prosperity of the country, and because the new immigrants have represented a minority of the population. However, if the economic or food situation seriously deteriorates — and that is a real possibility in the future — we can expect to have interethnic violence in the future. Just something to think about for all those idealistic politically correct types that want to deny the fact that we are currently engaging in a very dangerous and irreversible experiment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: