Is multiculturalism harmful for democracy?

[Dušan]

In a homogeneous society, there is a greater degree of solidarity and internal cohesion between members of society.

[Megadorian]

In a homogeneous society, there is a greater degree of solidarity and internal cohesion between members of society.

Homogenous society?

Your very own Serbia is composed of thousands of assimilated aromanians and albanians beside the hundreds of Hungarians you've landlocked in Vojvodina

[Zeno]

Yes, it definitely is harmful to democracy.

Because democracy is actually diversity of opinions, but within a group only. There's something called relativism. That means all groups on Earth have quite different morals, different stances and attitudes and above all, different interests. In that way, there can never be any kind of objective thought. Only comparisons.

That worsens if you put vastly different groups within a single society. The friction between the various interests will inevitably cause conflict, which will lead to division, and then to a fight over who's going to take the reigns of power. The passage that you cited describes that crystal clearly, especially in the original ancient Greek version.

1303a ὧν πολλάκις λανθάνει τι αὐξανόμενον, οἷον τὸ τῶν ἀπόρων πλῆθος ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις καὶ πολιτείαις. συμβαίνει δ᾽ ἐνίοτε τοῦτο καὶ διὰ τύχας, οἷον ἐν Τάραντι ἡττηθέντων καὶ ἀπολομένων πολλῶν γνωρίμων ὑπὸ τῶν [5] Ἰαπύγων μικρὸν ὕστερον τῶν Μηδικῶν δημοκρατία ἐγένετο ἐκ πολιτείας, καὶ ἐν Ἄργει τῶν ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπολομένων ὑπὸ Κλεομένους τοῦ Λάκωνος ἠναγκάσθησαν παραδέξασθαι τῶν περιοίκων τινάς, καὶ ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀτυχούντων πεζῇ οἱ γνώριμοι ἐλάττους ἐγένοντο διὰ τὸ ἐκ καταλόγου [10] στρατεύεσθαι ὑπὸ τὸν Λακωνικὸν πόλεμον. συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν ταῖς δημοκρατίαις, ἧττον δέ· πλειόνων γὰρ τῶν εὐπόρων γινομένων ἢ τῶν οὐσιῶν αὐξανομένων μεταβάλλουσιν εἰς ὀλιγαρχίας καὶ δυναστείας. μεταβάλλουσι δ᾽ αἱ πολιτεῖαι καὶ ἄνευ στάσεως διά τε τὰς ἐριθείας, ὥσπερ [15] ἐν Ἡραίᾳ (ἐξ αἱρετῶν γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐποίησαν κληρωτάς, ὅτι ᾑροῦντο τοὺς ἐριθευομένους), καὶ δι᾽ ὀλιγωρίαν, ὅταν ἐάσωσιν εἰς τὰς ἀρχὰς τὰς κυρίας παριέναι τοὺς μὴ τῇ πολιτείᾳ φίλους, ὥσπερ ἐν Ὠρεῷ κατελύθη ἡ ὀλιγαρχία τῶν ἀρχόντων γενομένου Ἡρακλεοδώρου, ὃς ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας [20] πολιτείαν καὶ δημοκρατίαν κατεσκεύασεν. ἔτι διὰ τὸ παρὰ μικρόν. λέγω δὲ παρὰ μικρόν, ὅτι πολλάκις λανθάνει μεγάλη γινομένη μετάβασις τῶν νομίμων, ὅταν παρορῶσι τὸ μικρόν, ὥσπερ ἐν Ἀμβρακίᾳ μικρὸν ἦν τὸ τίμημα, τέλος δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ οὐθενὸς ἦρχον, ὡς ἔγγιον ἢ μηθὲν διαφέρον τοῦ [25] μηθὲν τὸ μικρόν. στασιωτικὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ ὁμόφυλον, ἕως ἂν συμπνεύσῃ· ὥσπερ γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ τυχόντος πλήθους πόλις γίγνεται, οὕτως οὐδ᾽ ἐν τῷ τυχόντι χρόνῳ· διὸ ὅσοι ἤδη συνοίκους ἐδέξαντο ἢ ἐποίκους, οἱ πλεῖστοι διεστασίασαν· οἷον Τροιζηνίοις Ἀχαιοὶ συνῴκησαν Σύβαριν, εἶτα πλείους οἱ [30] Ἀχαιοὶ γενόμενοι ἐξέβαλον τοὺς Τροιζηνίους, ὅθεν τὸ ἄγος συνέβη τοῖς Συβαρίταις· καὶ ἐν Θουρίοις Συβαρῖται τοῖς συνοικήσασιν (πλεονεκτεῖν γὰρ ἀξιοῦντες ὡς σφετέρας τῆς χώρας ἐξέπεσον)· καὶ Βυζαντίοις οἱ ἔποικοι ἐπιβουλεύοντες φωραθέντες ἐξέπεσον διὰ μάχης· καὶ Ἀντισσαῖοι τοὺς Χίων [35] φυγάδας εἰσδεξάμενοι διὰ μάχης ἐξέβαλον· Ζαγκλαῖοι δὲ Σαμίους ὑποδεξάμενοι ἐξέπεσον αὐτοί· καὶ Ἀπολλωνιᾶται οἱ ἐν τῷ Εὐξείνῳ πόντῳ ἐποίκους ἐπαγαγόμενοι ἐστασίασαν· καὶ Συρακούσιοι μετὰ τὰ τυραννικὰ.

be changed into an animal of a different form, if it increase beyond proportion not only in quantity, but also in disposition of parts; so also a city consists of parts, some of which may often increase without notice, as the number of poor in democracies and free states. They will also sometimes happen by accident, as at Tarentum, a little after the Median war, where so many of the nobles were killed in a battle by the lapygi, that from a free state the government was turned into a democracy; and at Argos, where so many of the citizens were killed by Cleomenes the Spartan, that they were obliged to admit several husbandmen to the freedom of the state: and at Athens, through the unfortunate event of the infantry battles, the number of the nobles was reduced by the soldiers being chosen from the list of citizens in the Lacedaemonian wars. Revolutions also sometimes take place in a democracy, though seldomer; for where the rich grow numerous or properties increase, they become oligarchies or dynasties. Governments also sometimes alter without seditions by a combination of the meaner people; as at Hersea: for which purpose they changed the mode of election from votes to lots, and thus got themselves chosen: and by negligence, as when the citizens admit those who are not friends to the constitution into the chief offices of the state, which happened at Orus, when the oligarchy of the archons was put an end to at the election of Heracleodorus, who changed that form of government into a democratic free state. By little and little, I mean by this, that very often great alterations silently take place in the form of government from people's overlooking small matters; as at Ambracia, where the census was originally small, but at last became nothing at all, as if a little and nothing at all were nearly or entirely alike. That state also is liable to seditions which is composed of different nations, till their differences are blended together and undistinguishable; for as a city cannot be composed of every multitude, so neither can it in every given time; for which reason all those republics which have hitherto been originally composed of different people or afterwards admitted their neighbours to the freedom of their city, have been most liable to revolutions; as when the Achaeans joined with the Traezenians in founding Sybaris; for soon after, growing more powerful than the Traezenians, they expelled them from the city; from whence came the proverb of Sybarite wickedness: and again, disputes from a like cause happened at Thurium between the Sybarites and those who had joined with them in building the city; for they assuming upon these, on account of the country being their own, were driven out. And at Byzantium the new citizens, being detected in plots against the state, were driven out of the city by force of arms. The Antisseans also, having taken in those who were banished from Chios, afterwards did the same thing; and also the Zancleans, after having taken in the people of Samos. The Appolloniats, in the Euxine Sea, having admitted their sojourners to the freedom of their city, were troubled with seditions: and the Syracusians, after the expulsion of their tyrants, having enrolled.

In that measure, multiculturalism can never, ever work. It can only work when the dominant culture forcibly assimilates the smaller ones. If we are going to take the US as an example, it is exactly that. The Anglo-Saxon culture dominates the others and it forces them to assimilate. But there's a crucial element here: up until the 60s, 9/10s of all America's inhabitants were coming from Europe, and the ethnic groups inhabiting it had more or less some, at least, common values and some common interests. But ever since the 60s more and more people from groups that don't originate from Europe are increasing their share in the population of the given country. And that has caused for now unprecedented friction and conflict. And it's only going to drive itself into direct conflict.

It is as Aristotle in his Politics has described: they're prone into instability and revolutions.

And, in what situation are many European countries led to, given the current diversification of their populi? Oh...

[Zeno]

Yes:

Only Anglo-Saxon countries can do democracy. The natural state of human society is despotism. If you tally up all the human lives that have ever been lived on this planet under organized systems of government, no more than five per cent were lived under consensual systems. Even to get up to five per cent, you have to include places like ancient Athens and Tudor England, which wouldn’t pass muster as “democratic” by modern standards. In the last couple of centuries, practically all consensual systems have been Anglo-Saxon. Other cultures can fake it for a few decades, as France, Germany, and Japan are currently doing, but their hearts aren’t really in it and they will swoon gratefully into the arms of a fascist dictator when one comes along

Yeah, because the US and Britain are checking p e r f e c t l y as of now.

[Dimitri159]

Yes, absolutely. Because every culture has different ideas. With multi-culturalism, there will never be a fully satisfied majority.

[jfgh676]

Yes:

Only Anglo-Saxon countries can do democracy. The natural state of human society is despotism. If you tally up all the human lives that have ever been lived on this planet under organized systems of government, no more than five per cent were lived under consensual systems. Even to get up to five per cent, you have to include places like ancient Athens and Tudor England, which wouldn’t pass muster as “democratic” by modern standards. In the last couple of centuries, practically all consensual systems have been Anglo-Saxon. Other cultures can fake it for a few decades, as France, Germany, and Japan are currently doing, but their hearts aren’t really in it and they will swoon gratefully into the arms of a fascist dictator when one comes along

The french alt-right ramble all day about Republican values but would happily welcome another Napoleonic dictator if it came their way

[Demis]

Absolutely. Maybe not in the sense of the diversity of opinions, but ethnic diversity cannot be allowed or at least should be limited. If a nation fails to preserve its ethnic homogeneity, and if the main ethnic group of the said country became a minority, that country would become an artificial state. Guess we gonna see what will happen to Turkey.

[Rædwald]

Clearly, there is mountains of evidence supporting it too.

[LittleDarkAge]

You tell me.

• 90% of Blacks voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
• 88% of Blacks voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
• 65% of Latinos and Asians voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
• 87% of Blacks voted for Joe Biden in 2020.
• 66% of Latinos voted for Joe Biden in 2020.
• 63% of Asians voted for Joe Biden in 2020.

[gixajo]

You tell me.

• 90% of Blacks voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
• 88% of Blacks voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
• 65% of Latinos and Asians voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
• 87% of Blacks voted for Joe Biden in 2020.
• 66% of Latinos voted for Joe Biden in 2020.
• 63% of Asians voted for Joe Biden in 2020.

And the percentages of the "White" vote in all those elections?

And if you could divide the vote of these two ethnic groups, because I don't quite understand why they are together:

65% of Latinos and Asians voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Thanks,