What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

WrenBoy

CruelCoin wrote: »

I don't think it makes any country better or worse in any real sense.
****e people abound in every race and culture.

We have it because papa EU told us to have it.
I don't think we'd have anything like what we have right now if we hadn't been told to allow it.

I think thats the most upsetting part to me, I love what the EU has done for Ireland and I have no issue with immigration and free movement in the EU, but Ireland has to act as a partner in Europe and not a supplicant. I keep getting the impression that we have to do this and that because of Europe, but we have the ability to control immigration ourselves but I seems our politicians are too scared of seeing a furrowed brow on the face of other Union delegates and possibly losing out on a cushy job in Brussels down the line. Thats just the impression I get, obviously I'm not that well versed on the inner politics.

Wibbs

CruelCoin wrote: »

I don't think it makes any country better or worse in any real sense.
****e people abound in every race and culture.

That's the recently fashionable cultural equivalence - judgement is subjective and can never be objective so no point in judging - lazy philosophy and it doesn't stand up to much in the way of scrutiny. A lazy philosophy that's ironically and entirely western in origin. Few Asians or Africans buy into it. Two world wars and the fall of European empires rattled our western cages and the conclusion was guilt, fear of the past mistakes and a distaste for European culture ethnocentrism in academic and political circles. The EU being an obvious example of that fear of it could happen again that looked to "multiculturalism" as a brake on that. Instead it has actually driven division within Europe towards those who weren't European coming in.

If countries and cultures weren't worse or better in any real sense then why is human migration going only one way? And that way is overwhelmingly towards western societies and cultures from non western ones. Where it doesn't in the case of East Asian societies and cultures it's because they're on a par with Western societies in many ways and certainly more proud(dirty word) and protective of their own cultures. If large numbers of people are moving from country/culture A into country/culture B, then country/culture A clearly isn't so good. And yet quite a few demographics want to recreate enclaves in the not so good culture they left in the superior one they moved to.

cgcsb

There are examples of successful multi cultural societies outside the western world.

Examples

UAE/Dubai:
-Most people are born elsewhere
-Dictatorship
-Wealthy country
-No social welfare net of any kind, zilch, nada
-Impossible to gain citizenship even if you are born there
-Punishment for law braking is brutal
-Society is organised by a racial hierarchy of rights. Locals and other Arab people come first, White people second, Indians and Pakistanis last

If you are (a white guy) in a queue in Dubai with Indians you'll be moved up. If there is a promotion opportunity a local gets it, even if their lack of competence means also hiring a European person to effectively do the work required. If there is a legal dispute between a local and non local, the local wins (e.g. if a local off their tits on drink and drugs crashes into you, it's your fault). If you are an Indian/Pakistani you will be used for hard labour, your passport confiscated and you'll be effectively enslaved. Don't like it? deportation for whites and some brutal punishment for the rest.

all the above also stands in Saudi and indeed all of the wealthy arab states.

Singapore:
Same as Dubai except brutal punishments are less common although there are executions for drug offences. Racial hierarchy exists but is more subtle. Again, no welfare, no tolerance of disorder. Drink, drugs and even chewing gum are heavily restricted or banned.

Compare the above to western attempts at multi-culturalism it seems obvious that lack of a hierarchy/authority and easy access to welfare for locals and for migrants even easier access to parts of the welfare system (housing particularly) leads to problems.

CruelCoin

Wibbs wrote: »

Highly unlikely as people overwhelmingly tend to have kids with those from a similar background including ethnicity. We see this in colonial nations like Brazil where there are centuries of different ethnicities living together and yet those who look "White" are genetically mostly European, those who look "Black" are genetically mostly African and so on. Same goes for the rest of the world throughout human history. There is mixing within broad populations like European, Asian, African and some mixing on the fringes, but the basic populations remain, even in geographic and cultural crossroads and heavily trafficked routes like the Silk Road and the Middle East. Plus going Brown eventually would be a complete disaster for genetic and cultural diversity.

I see it as inevitable in the far future.

For the vast majority of human history, moving far enough away to get to a cultural/racial group that was significantly different from yours required you to pretty much abandon your existing life. Not an appealing concept when you're not many meals from starvation.
We're going to see a huge acceleration now that we can all travel freely/affordably/quickly.
Like tech/financial gains have gone exponential in the last century, movement of people will do likewise.

CruelCoin

Wibbs wrote: »

If countries and cultures weren't worse or better in any real sense then why is human migration going only one way?

Not being dirt poor is a hell of a motivator. You don't mention the economic motive at all.

I don't think being forced to wear a Hijab, or trying to escape arranged marriages accounts for all the migration.

fantaiscool

Wibbs wrote: »

Highly unlikely as people overwhelmingly tend to have kids with those from a similar background including ethnicity. We see this in colonial nations like Brazil where there are centuries of different ethnicities living together and yet those who look "White" are genetically mostly European, those who look "Black" are genetically mostly African and so on. Same goes for the rest of the world throughout human history. There is mixing within broad populations like European, Asian, African and some mixing on the fringes, but the basic populations remain, even in geographic and cultural crossroads and heavily trafficked routes like the Silk Road and the Middle East. Plus going Brown eventually would be a complete disaster for genetic and cultural diversity.

Different world now though isn't it. The world becomes more and more liberal. I see quite a lot of mixed couples these days. Irish girls and lads of other ethnicity but also I have seen some Irish lads with girls of different ethnicity. I've certainly availed of multiculturalism in that respect myself. Most couples I see these days are young enough and it makes sense when you look at how they have grown up in schools together. For me I went through primary and secondary school with only two non white people being in the entire schools the entire time. Both were lads and both mixed race. Nowadays you'd have so many lads and girls of different backgrounds in the class. Naturally they are going to be much more open to befriending and dating each other and others like them.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

So you're admitting it doesn't work? That there are no examples where it does? That human nature drives people to want to be around "their own" when numbers allow? Fair enough.

And yes I am very much a culturalist. Some cultures are demonstrably better than others on a few metrics and western European liberal democracies are right at the top of the tree. I don't want inferior cultures and cultural practices coming here and screwing that up. It was hard won.

What I’m admitting or agreeing with is that forced integration or poorly thought out integration policies don’t work. Multiculturalism is just people living in society who do or don’t share a common culture or set of values. That’s why I pointed out that the idea of living in a liberal democracy is all well and good, until it’s actually tested by the introduction of new ideas which are different to mainstream ideas.

That’s why I agreed with the example of France where they had ideas of being a liberal democracy, but they’re not actually a liberal democracy at all, as they have tried to force immigrants to integrate into French society, and it hasn’t worked out well for either French society, nor for immigrants. Same in Sweden, Germany, UK and Ireland. It’s a failure of their integration policies, not multiculturalism itself.

Immigrants still only make up something between 20 - 25% of the population in most European countries, and they aren’t in any particular positions of power to have any influence over how those societies in which they live are governed, so as radicalised as small pockets of impoverished illegal immigrants might be, they’re not in any position to make changes to integration and immigration policies - that’s entirely within the remit of the Governments of their host countries, which pride themselves on being seen internationally as European liberal democracies.

Wibbs

CruelCoin wrote: »

I see it as inevitable in the far future.

If so it will be a disaster on genetic diversity alone.

For the vast majority of human history, moving far enough away to get to a cultural/racial group that was significantly different from yours required you to pretty much abandon your existing life. Not an appealing concept when you're not many meals from starvation.
We're going to see a huge acceleration now that we can all travel freely/affordably/quickly.
Like tech/financial gains have gone exponential in the last century, movement of people will do likewise.

Actually and contrary to popular belief peoples did move large distances in the past. Our very species Homo Sapiens left Africa in at least two waves and in the latter one made it to south east Asia by 60-70,000 years ago, within a very short timeframe of leaving Africa. Like centuries or less. We got into the Americas and with a couple of thousand years went right down to the southern tip. And we did all that while driving existing humans in those areas(save for the Americas) extinct through competition and/or breeding them out. And we were middle stone age hunter gatherer peoples while doing all that. Ireland was populated first by hunter gatherers from Europe and then farmers from the Middle East who replaced the earlier peoples. Later on Alexander's armies went right across the middle into the near east in under a decade. A few Chinese people have been found in ancient Rome and the later Byzantines were in contact and trading with China. The speed of travel has most certainly gone up, but in the majority of cases it's temporary; holidays, business etc.

Large more permanent movements like the recent influx into Europe are a rare event in human history and when they occurred in the past it rarely went well for the locals. The other aspect to modern travel and communications is that is significantly more easy to travel back and forth physically and culturally and keep in touch, so mass migrations are more likely to keep the old cultures going. In the past mass migrations tended more than not to absorb and be absorbed into the host culture.

CruelCoin wrote: »

Not being dirt poor is a hell of a motivator. You don't mention the economic motive at all.

Oh economic migration is a massive part of it and also demonstrates the superiority of some cultures over others. However even economically western European nations are more desirable over say East Asian or Middle Eastern cultures even though they're just as economically vibrant, but they're far less permissive and far less weak as far as cultural confidence goes. IE they're less of a pushover and if you don't toe the cultural line you're out, or never getting in in the first place. How many of the rich ME countries have taken in Syrian refugees? Feck all.

I don't think being forced to wear a Hijab, or trying to escape arranged marriages accounts for all the migration.

I'd give such people much more leeway than unskilled or low skilled economic migrants. The latter are a drain on the host cultures.

Wibbs

cgcsb wrote: »

There are examples of successful multi cultural societies outside the western world.

Examples

UAE/Dubai:
-Most people are born elsewhere
-Dictatorship
-Wealthy country
-No social welfare net of any kind, zilch, nada
-Impossible to gain citizenship even if you are born there
-Punishment for law braking is brutal
-Society is organised by a racial hierarchy of rights. Locals and other Arab people come first, White people second, Indians and Pakistanis last

Indeed. As I've noted before where multiculturalism "worked" it was ironically within more "right wing" and hardline states and empires where there was a distinct pecking order along race, religion and ethnic lines. Rome, the Caliphate, China. Dubai and the like would be modern equivalents.

fantaiscool wrote: »

Different world now though isn't it. The world becomes more and more liberal. I see quite a lot of mixed couples these days. Irish girls and lads of other ethnicity but also I have seen some Irish lads with girls of different ethnicity. I've certainly availed of multiculturalism in that respect myself. Most couples I see these days are young enough and it makes sense when you look at how they have grown up in schools together. For me I went through primary and secondary school with only two non white people being in the entire schools the entire time. Both were lads and both mixed race. Nowadays you'd have so many lads and girls of different backgrounds in the class. Naturally they are going to be much more open to befriending and dating each other and others like them.

And yet in the UK which has been running with multiculturalism since the end of WW2 and for far longer than Ireland which is basically only two decades only around 2% of British people are mixed race and it's an almost entirely urban phenomenon. If you look more deeply you could extend the definitions along racial/ethnic lines and you find you have quite a bit more of Blacks and Whites and Asians of mixed ethnicties within them. EG British guy with Polish women. Mixed, but both White Europeans. There are also groups that don't tend to mix. So say Pakistani and White English would be far rarer. The other trend is that White men are more likely to be with Black and Asian women than the other way around*. So it's not such a different world.







*though interestingly surveys show women are more likely to be more progressive than men as far as diversity goes, but not in practice. I personally know considerably more Irish guys with non Irish women of all backgrounds than the other way around.

CruelCoin

Wibbs wrote: »

If so it will be a disaster on genetic diversity alone.

How do you reckon? If a stagnant genetic pool is bad (is why we have animal highway crossings etc) then what is the negative aspect to allowing the greatest possible mixing pot of genetic source material?

You mean once we get completely homogenised to the point where there is no different source to be found?

Wibbs wrote: »

Large more permanent movements like the recent influx into Europe are a rare event in human history and when they occurred in the past it rarely went well for the locals. The other aspect to modern travel and communications is that is significantly more easy to travel back and forth physically and culturally and keep in touch, so mass migrations are more likely to keep the old cultures going. In the past mass migrations tended more than not to absorb and be absorbed into the host culture.

Ok, that's my point, it's going to accelerate, and be very unlike the gradual creep across fresh ground in ancient history. I'm not saying it won't have it's bad effects (the romans hardly had a fun time with the visigoths), but it is inevitable.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh economic migration is a massive part of it and also demonstrates the superiority of some cultures over others. However even economically western European nations are more desirable over say East Asian or Middle Eastern cultures even though they're just as economically vibrant, but they're far less permissive and far less weak as far as cultural confidence goes. IE they're less of a pushover and if you don't toe the cultural line you're out, or never getting in in the first place. How many of the rich ME countries have taken in Syrian refugees? Feck all.

And that's wrong. Refugees should be able to go to the first safe port, not first permissive one.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd give such people much more leeway than unskilled or low skilled economic migrants. The latter are a drain on the host cultures.

Didn't Merkel say "come on in" that time a few years ago because Germany has a huge young people deficit. They didn't need doctors, they needed bodies.
I wouldn't agree that all unskilled migration is negative, providing that your demographics actually call for it.

biko

As we learned from Yugoslavia - multiculturalism works just fine under a dictator.
Remove the dictator and you immediately get wars, ethnic cleansing etc.

Look at Rwanda - the war arose from the long-running dispute between the Hutu and Tutsi groups within the Rwandan population.
It was an incredible brutal ethnic cleansing.

And where did they find Rwandan war criminals? The multicultural paradise that is Sweden.
Countries in Europe have many war criminals that have "fled" here after butchering their own population.

fantaiscool

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. As I've noted before where multiculturalism "worked" it was ironically within more "right wing" and hardline states and empires where there was a distinct pecking order along race, religion and ethnic lines. Rome, the Caliphate, China. Dubai and the like would be modern equivalents.

And yet in the UK which has been running with multiculturalism since the end of WW2 and for far longer than Ireland which is basically only two decades only around 2% of British people are mixed race and it's an almost entirely urban phenomenon. If you look more deeply you could extend the definitions along racial/ethnic lines and you find you have quite a bit more of Blacks and Whites and Asians of mixed ethnicties within them. EG British guy with Polish women. Mixed, but both White Europeans. There are also groups that don't tend to mix. So say Pakistani and White English would be far rarer. The other trend is that White men are more likely to be with Black and Asian women than the other way around*. So it's not such a different world.







*though interestingly surveys show women are more likely to be more progressive than men as far as diversity goes, but not in practice. I personally know considerably more Irish guys with non Irish women of all backgrounds than the other way around.

The class system in the UK is nothing like anything in Ireland so I don't think it's a fair comparison. I think Ireland is completely different in that regard. Time will tell but I think the numbers of mixed race will continue to be on the upswing.

Wibbs

CruelCoin wrote: »

How do you reckon? If a stagnant genetic pool is bad (is why we have animal highway crossings etc) then what is the negative aspect to allowing the greatest possible mixing pot of genetic source material?

You mean once we get completely homogenised to the point where there is no different source to be found?

Essentially yes. Plus why would such a thing be a positive? And that positive is always along the lines of White needing more Brown in the mix. Just like modern "multiculturalism". Only White nations are seen to be somehow in such dire need of it. White people from other and different European cultures aren't nearly diverse enough. They rarely if ever figure in government or NGO debates. The same people who would be standard bearers for "diversity" would be aghast at the idea that what Black or Brown people and societies need to improve themselves is more White people and culture in their mix. Again down to a very recent guilt/lack of confidence in cultural pride because of the fall out of White conflicts in the 20th century.

And that's wrong. Refugees should be able to go to the first safe port, not first permissive one.

Agreed.

Didn't Merkel say "come on in" that time a few years ago because Germany has a huge young people deficit. They didn't need doctors, they needed bodies.
I wouldn't agree that all unskilled migration is negative, providing that your demographics actually call for it.

And Merkel backtracked on that. Unskilled migration is a very bad bet. The modern western world has changed massively since the time when unskilled manual labour was needed. If this were the middle of the industrial revolution, or we were building colonies then fine, we needed bodies, but that's not the world of today. And that's going to become even more of an issue with the increasing march of automation across all industries. Even many skilled labour jobs will be in trouble(and in unexpected ways. eg it's far easier to replace a doctor with AI than a nurse). For the first time in history mechanisation and automation is replacing minds as well as muscles. We will come to need fewer people, not more and certainly not unskilled people and when we finally, hopefully put the brakes on our unsustainable consumerist "constant growth" economic model that need for fewer people will be even more stark.

WrenBoy

fantaiscool wrote: »

The class system in the UK is nothing like anything in Ireland so I don't think it's a fair comparison. I think Ireland is completely different in that regard. Time will tell but I think the numbers of mixed race will continue to be on the upswing.

Aah I don't think the English would be that much different to us in terms of class division nowadays. We'd have as much between the Dublin Trinity Banking job heads and the west Kerry farmers.

CruelCoin

Wibbs wrote: »

hopefully put the brakes on our unsustainable consumerist "constant growth" economic model that need for fewer people will be even more stark.

You may as well wish for the moon.
You will never rid the human condition of greed.
The drive for more stuff, better stuff, will overcome any and all efforts to rein in it's negative effects.

Oh, mind me asking, which do you feel is more likely?

A - Machines do all the work, and humans live an egalitarian life of relative comfort and leisure, sharing the spoils from the machines labour.
B - A small cabal of megarich control the machines and the means to make them. Most of humanity lives in abject poverty and squalor.

Humans being greedy and always chasing the rainbow, my own bet is on B.

Wibbs

fantaiscool wrote: »

The class system in the UK is nothing like anything in Ireland so I don't think it's a fair comparison. I think Ireland is completely different in that regard.

Similar trends are seen in France, Holland, Germany. Hell, even in multicultural ex European colonies like the US and the like. In the US "melting pot" the percentage of mixed race is under 3%. Canada which prides itself on being near the top of the mixed race tree it's around 4%. People overwhelmingly tend to "stick to their own" worldwide, even after centuries of different ethnicities living together. It's more common in certain demographics(lower socioeconomic demographics for example) and far more common in urban versus rural areas. The media can also skew our perceptions on this. So for all the talk among some African Americans about lack of representation in media, their percentages of representation in media is far higher than the actual percentages in societies at larger. Same for mixed race folks. There are more Hispanics than African Americans in the US, yet they are not nearly so visible in US media.

cgcsb

WrenBoy wrote: »

Aah I don't think the English would be that much different to us in terms of class division nowadays. We'd have as much between the Dublin Trinity Banking job heads and the west Kerry farmers.

It's COMPLETELY different in Ireland specifically because the West Kerry farmer has a realistic possibility of studying at Trinity if he wants to. In the UK you have your station and you don't move from it. The Yorkshire farmer is certainly not going to Oxford and more than likely doesn't even own the land he's grazing sheep on but instead pays rent to some gentry who stole it some generations ago.

Wibbs

CruelCoin wrote: »

You may as well wish for the moon.
You will never rid the human condition of greed.
The drive for more stuff, better stuff, will overcome any and all efforts to rein in it's negative effects.

Oh, mind me asking, which do you feel is more likely?

A - Machines do all the work, and humans live an egalitarian life of relative comfort and leisure, sharing the spoils from the machines labour.
B - A small cabal of megarich control the machines and the means to make them. Most of humanity lives in abject poverty and squalor.

Humans being greedy and always chasing the rainbow, my own bet is on B.

Actually consumerism is a very recent human invention. Mass consumerism like today even more so and for most of human history in religion, philosophy and culture "greed is good" was considered a horror, a "mortal sin", even among the powerful going too obvious down the greed route tended to get your head chopped off. Hell even Marcus Aurelius, emperor of Rome cautioned against it. He's well worth reading actually, even today. Especially today.

fantaiscool

Wibbs wrote: »

Similar trends are seen in France, Holland, Germany. Hell, even in multicultural ex European colonies like the US and the like. In the US "melting pot" the percentage of mixed race is under 3%. Canada which prides itself on being near the top of the mixed race tree it's around 4%. People overwhelmingly tend to "stick to their own" worldwide, even after centuries of different ethnicities living together. It's more common in certain demographics(lower socioeconomic demographics for example) and far more common in urban versus rural areas. The media can also skew our perceptions on this. So for all the talk among some African Americans about lack of representation in media, their percentages of representation in media is far higher than the actual percentages in societies at larger. Same for mixed race folks. There are more Hispanics than African Americans in the US, yet they are not nearly so visible in US media.

My stance is that these percentages are growing and I think it's reasonable to assume they will continue to grow. I think those numbers and growth are actually good considering the stigma that would have been there. We live in a totally different time now. The zeitgeist of the time changes in the favor of a more and more liberal society. It's unreasonable not to expect those percentages to be on the upswing don't you think. Take the 4% of mixed race people in Canada, who do you think they will reproduce with? They'll be Canadian in nature as they grew up there and will likely get hitched to a native Canadian I would think while the first generation mixed race will continue to grow also. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think I'm being logical here.

fantaiscool

cgcsb wrote: »

It's COMPLETELY different in Ireland specifically because the West Kerry farmer has a realistic possibility of studying at Trinity if he wants to. In the UK you have your station and you don't move from it. The Yorkshire farmer is certainly not going to Oxford and more than likely doesn't even own the land he's grazing sheep on but instead pays rent to some gentry who stole it some generations ago.

Correct. It's absolutely light and day between them.

CruelCoin

CruelCoin wrote: »

You said this didn't you?

"Your wife working here isn't a sign of multiculturalism. My working in China doesn't make China multicultural."

What are you talking about if not work.

For someone who claims to be Irish, your understanding/application of English leaves a lot to be desired.

I give up.

CruelCoin

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually consumerism is a very recent human invention. Mass consumerism like today even more so and for most of human history in religion, philosophy and culture "greed is good" was considered a horror, a "mortal sin", even among the powerful going too obvious down the greed route tended to get your head chopped off. Hell even Marcus Aurelius, emperor of Rome cautioned against it. He's well worth reading actually, even today. Especially today.

I don't think it's a recent development.
Evolution rewards greed. Greed for mates, resources, territory etc.
You can call it consumerism if you like, but the driving force is still the same.

I'll look the book up

Wibbs

fantaiscool wrote: »

My stance is that these percentages are growing and I think it's reasonable to assume they will continue to grow. I think those numbers and growth are actually good considering the stigma that would have been there. We live in a totally different time now. The zeitgeist of the time changes in the favor of a more and more liberal society. It's unreasonable not to expect those percentages to be on the upswing don't you think.

That's assuming the zeitgeist continues to change in one direction. Human history has shown that's rarely the case and a volte face is more likely than not. Accepted Truths are rarely truths for long. Though every culture assumes theirs will be somehow different. It's a wonderfully comfortable notion but... Change is indeed inevitable, but that change is rarely predicted with much accuracy.

Wibbs

CruelCoin wrote: »

I don't think it's a recent development.

Mass consumerism quite simply didn't exist before the industrial revolution. The level of consumerism we live through today would boggle the minds of your great grandparents, even grandparents.

Evolution rewards greed. Greed for mates, resources, territory etc.
You can call it consumerism if you like, but the driving force is still the same.

Actually that's debatable. Evolution rewards having more kids. That's pretty much the be all and end all of it. The unskilled labourer in a sink estate with ten kids by five different mothers is ahead of the billionaire with only two. Beyond that it gets far more murky. Modern humans outcompeted previous humans because our tribes were larger and more cohesive with more connections. Cooperation rather than hoarding on individual scales was our killer app. When agriculture came along ownership and resources got a lot more of a boost, but even so the cultures were awash with cautionary tales of excess. King Midas being an obvious one.

Plus a lot of this evolutionary theory applied to culture hails from the US and has very much a US slant on it. The conclusions also vary depending on who's doing the concluding. So the US "right" will take a very different tack to the US "left" when dealing with the same data.

I'll look the book up

Defo worth a gander alright CC.

One eyed Jack

CruelCoin wrote: »

I don't think it's a recent development.
Evolution rewards greed. Greed for mates, resources, territory etc.
You can call it consumerism if you like, but the driving force is still the same.

I'll look the book up

Off-topic somewhat, but evolution doesn’t reward greed, and that’s not consumerism either, so I wouldn’t call it consumerism. Evolution doesn’t care for material possessions or wealth, people do, in much the same way as people care for having the latest mass produced shiny shìte. Stoicism rejects the ideas of immediate gratification and self-interest, ideas rooted in liberal ideology.

See like a Stoic: an ancient technique for modern consumers

Mules

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I think it's worked out really well for Ireland. It was an awful ****hole in nineties, now people like Ireland again.

I liked the 90's

biko

biko wrote: »

As we learned from Yugoslavia - multiculturalism works just fine under a dictator.
Remove the dictator and you immediately get wars, ethnic cleansing etc..

Yugoslavia worked fine under tito, everybody was allowed their own culture, language, people worked and got along fine.
When an actual dictator took over, he attempted to kill the culture of non Serbians.

Ethnic cleansing was committed by a dictator.

seenitall

bubblypop wrote: »

Yugoslavia worked fine under tito, everybody was allowed their own culture, language, people worked and got along fine.
When an actual dictator took over, he attempted to kill the culture of non Serbians.

Ethnic cleansing was committed by a dictator.

The unification was under a dictator, too. That’s what Tito was, he just wasn’t a nationalistic dictator. Communism was his thing. Biko is right.

Yugoslavia certainly wasn’t a democracy in any meaningful, pluralistic sense of the word.

seenitall

seenitall wrote: »

The unification was under a dictator, too. That’s what Tito was, he just wasn’t a nationalistic dictator. Communism was his thing. Biko is right.

Yugoslavia certainly wasn’t a democracy in any meaningful, pluralistic sense of the word.

No, biko is not right, he said it only worked under a dictator, clearly completely wrong. I think we all know Yugoslavia was not a democratic country?
Milosevic was a dictator and he was the one that created wars and genocide.

seenitall

It only works under a strong unifying force and enforcement of same, such as, for example, a charismatic dictator, which Tito was. So Biko is right. The moment Tito died, things slowly began to turn to siht, looking at the nationalistic aspect of things. Nationalistic fomenting, as well as the urge for independence of most federal republics of YU started being expressed more and more confidently after he died (1980) and it took a decade to come to a head, also being helped by what was happening to communism further afield as well. All of these ethnic clashes in YU have their origin in Tito bundling a host of disparate nations together under a repressive regime and holding them together by force and fear. It was always going to fall apart without his steely fist, just a question of when. The Serbs had the most to lose by losing YU and communism, as they would regularly hold the highest military and administrative positions, i.e. had the most power.

Milosevic was a hateful little pirck who tried to ride the wave of history but misjudged things very badly, unfortunately not before enticing wholesale slaughter. However, there was a wave there (of nationalistic and territorial aspirations) for him to ride in the first place.

Why oh why are we Slavs so conducive to be mugs to communism?? *shakes fist at sky*