PDA

View Full Version : Would The World Be A Better Place If All Countries Were Homogeneous?



Digitalseal
Sunday, May 21st, 2006, 11:56 PM
The title says it.



homogeneous

Of the same or similar nature or kind: “a tight-knit, homogeneous society” (James Fallows).

Blood_Axis
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 12:04 AM
I can only say that the world was better when all (or most) countries were homogeneous ;)

Imperator X
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 12:13 AM
I can only say that the world was better when all (or most) countries were homogeneous ;)

I'd rather have a pagan Roman empire filled with Syrian, Germanic, Celtic, Huns, and even Negroids rather than a world of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim homogenous states.

however, one only need to look at China or Japan to see how well a homogenous, proud state flourishes in the modern world.

Sometimes however, institutions installed by alien invaders sometimes raises the standard of living for the inhabatants in the long term.. The Norman conquest and Rome come to mind here.

The introduction of Confucian mores and Chinese High Culture in Japan, allowed said country to become centralized and boom. Though I must say I have a bit of affection for pre-Confucian Japan. (Heian Period and before.)

Weg
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 12:17 AM
I don't mind that all countries be homogeneous as long as mine is. Homogeneous European nations would be a plus. :thumbup

Chlodovech
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 12:20 AM
There are countries so that humans would feel at home somewhere, it is as if a divine will has constructed them among the manies. :) Thus contributing to the wellbeing of the inhabitants.

Curiously enough I voted - accidently - 'no'. Bummer.

Theudiskaz
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 12:28 AM
I'd rather have a pagan Roman empire filled with Syrian, Germanic, Celtic, Huns, and even Negroids rather than a world of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim homogenous states.:-ONo thanks. Rome has contributed much positive to western civilization, obviously, and I am grateful for it; but ethnic identity was eroded heavily under the Roman empire. The Germanic countries of northern Europe wouldn't exist if the Romans hadn't gotten their a$$es handed to them in the Teutoburger Wald. Northern Europe would look like one big melting pot of nationalities speaking some odd Romance language. (kind of like France, no offense, Weg.:D) Can you imagine how much worse the situation would be under a modern Roman Empire?! (E.U.) :thumbdown

however, one only need to look at China or Japan to see how well a homogenous, proud state flourishes in the modern world.There you go!:thumbup


Sometimes however, institutions installed by alien invaders sometimes raises the standard of living for the inhabatants in the long term.. The Norman conquest and Rome come to mind here.Oh boy.:shoot

Jńger
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 12:48 AM
I voted Yes, A. Hitler explained it quite well


Unfortunately the German national being is not based on a uniform racial type. The process of welding the original elements together has not gone so far as to warrant us in saying that a new race has emerged. On the contrary, the poison which has invaded the national body, especially since the Thirty Years' War, has destroyed the uniform constitution not only of our blood but also of our national soul. The open frontiers of our native country, the association with non-German foreign elements in the territories that lie all along those frontiers, and especially the strong influx of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich itself, has prevented any complete assimilation of those various elements, because the influx has continued steadily. Out of this melting-pot no new race arose. The heterogeneous elements continue to exist side by side. And the result is that, especially in times of crisis, when the herd usually flocks together, the Germans disperse in all directions. The fundamental racial elements are not only different in different districts, but there are also various elements in the single districts. Beside the Nordic type we find the East-European type, beside the Eastern there is the Dinaric, the Western type intermingling with both, and hybrids among them all. That is a grave drawback for us. Through it the Germans lack that strong herd instinct which arises from unity of blood and saves nations from ruin in dangerous and critical times; because on such occasions small differences disappear, so that a united herd faces the enemy. What we understand by the word hyper-individualism arises from the fact that our primordial racial elements have existed side by side without ever consolidating. During times of peace such a situation may offer some advantages, but, taken all in all, it has prevented us from gaining a mastery in the world. If in its historical development the German people had possessed the unity of herd instinct by which other peoples have so much benefited, then the German Reich would probably be mistress of the globe today. World history would have taken another course and in this case no man can tell if what many blinded pacifists hope to attain by petitioning, whining and crying, may not have been reached in this way: namely, a peace which would not be based upon the waving of olive branches and tearful misery-mongering of pacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by the triumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master the world and administer it in the service of a higher civilization.

Celt-Iberian
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 02:06 AM
Yes I think so. I just hope it's something I get to see before my time on earth is done.

Northern Paladin
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 03:06 AM
I think it is better that a nation be homogenous it's productivity will be higher and the people will be happier. Many people preferred the old days of segragation rather than a forced integration an uneasy peace if you will.:)

Yes the The Lebensborn program was developed to aid the purification of the German Race. It's really a program that makes an irresistible offer. If approached by 100 women what man in his right mind would say no thanks!:D

Deling
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 03:26 AM
Hypothetically, of course, but countries are modern phenomena, and atleast Western Europe would be better if it was more or less homogenous. Ideal scenario, but it's atleast my fundamental belief that "the world" can't arrive at such a static, absolute condition, just as much as "Communism", the second Coming of Christ and "End of History" can't be revelated as the End with capital E; neither can the utopia of Ethnopluralism.
Something will move, whether it be people, forms of the state or the spirit of the age. But in the "now", homogenity of course, whatever it means.

Jack
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 04:10 AM
The world would definitely be better if all countries were homogenous.

Blood_Axis
Monday, May 22nd, 2006, 08:35 AM
I'd rather have a pagan Roman empire filled with Syrian, Germanic, Celtic, Huns, and even Negroids rather than a world of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim homogenous states.
I was, too, reffering to racially homogeneous countries.

The unity of diverse races/nations in empires under religious claims was, to me, the beginning of decay and the downfall of humanity. Something like that constitutes the first steps of globalization.

Of course I'd rather have homegeneous negroid countries as well. Isn't that what we're aiming for? That everyone keeps to themselves and minds their own businesses? :shrug

ˇ­inn
Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006, 08:44 PM
Well that depends how you define ethnic homogenity, I mean a homogenous finland (well it is almost homogenous already) ain't enough I can assure you that my inner spirit is eager to see a united and homogenous Nor­land (Denmark, Faraoese Islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden).

So a homogenous Finland is not enough, besides it would'nt be perfect anyways, better maybe but not perfect. Since an Utopia as said before is impsossible to reach. But the higher one aims the further one reaches.

Enibas
Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006, 11:29 PM
I┤ve voted: "the world is better if all countries were homogeneous".
Yes, of course, is there any reason against it? Same country, same culture, same race that┤s okay.

ˇ­inn
Wednesday, May 24th, 2006, 10:51 AM
I┤ve voted: "the world is better if all countries were homogeneous".
Yes, of course, is there any reason against it? Same country, same culture, same race that┤s okay.

That's "Lika barn leka bńst" in swedish. Which means somethig like "Similar kids plays the best".;)

And yes it would be better, not perfect though, but defenitly better. Look at Russia, Rome, the British Empire, those many-racial empires fell but the almost homogenous empire of China is still here. Those who claim that otherwise may go to China or Japan. Besides it strengthens the bond between a people when they are more homogenous.

Jehan
Wednesday, May 24th, 2006, 01:52 PM
As in all-white, all-black, etc, yes. But the idea of subracially pure countries is kinda goofy. I think cultural homogeneity is more important for a strong national identity.

Thusnelda
Thursday, May 25th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Isn't that what we're aiming for? That everyone keeps to themselves and minds their own businesses? :shrug
Yes, and it is called "Ethnopluralism". Every ethnicy and every culture should stick to theirself - and have the right to do so.