Remember that a nation works best when there is a shared culture and a shared language - these things being inseparable - which encourage unity and community.
Which nations are these? Looking at the current major world economies:
- US: Federal. Many immigrant communities. English and Spanish.
- China: Two major languages, two SARs, each with another official language. "Chinese Tapei" with Hokkien. Regional cultures I'm not familiar with.
- EU: 24 languages, made up of multiple countries many of which have multiple official or minority languages.
- Japan: Shared culture and language, stagnant economy.
- India: Barely half of the country speak the most common language.
I'd argue that lack of a common language is one of the main factors in the UK leaving the EU. People here (in the UK) don't realise how similar they are to other Europeans, because they can't understand them or their media.
This problem is less pronounced for the rest of the EU, because they tend to be better at teaching/learning other languages there.
Somehow ignoring that Japan had a gigantic economic boom in the '70s through the '80s to become the world's 2nd largest economy. Setting aside that relating shared language to economic strength is nonsense anyway, Japan does not bolster your thesis.
I would highlight "social welfare" rankings in particular: people seem to vote more for socialist measures—measures that tax them to provide for others—when they care more about those others. If this correlation holds (between lack of cultural diversity and social-welfare leanings), then it would suggest that the cultures that care most about helping their "fellow man" are the ones in which one's "fellow man" is the least different from oneself.
A nation can’t operate at its best without embracing diverse cultures and language. To do otherwise would leave us with incestuous, tired ideas. Stripping away unique cultural experience for the sake of “integration” hurts everyone. There is nothing to be gained and a whole lot to lose.
Encouraging immigrants to adopt Western values like gender equality, support for democratic ideas is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Rarely does anybody make the statement that "My adoption of your values will improve me"
Implicit subtext is that, all of my values are better than yours. Strikes me that this is probably quite unlikely.
Take a move from the US to Canada. I might prefer Canada's nationalized health system to America's every-man-for-himself system. But, I might also prefer American's highly interventionist foreign policy and take that preference with me when I move. [Not claiming I believe in either, just an example]
The reason the new country is economically better is most likely due in some part to their culture, not just luck or geography.
This doesn't mean that 100% of their cultural values are better, of course. But you should, if immigrating, take a very careful look at their values, because there's likely some very important things that have caused that country to do so well and for your former country to not do so well.
"Now as I have been welcomed in this country I am willing to adopt their habbits because I want to be part of this community and the community will accept me more easily when I am doing so."
Says a person who is undoubtedly western. You might not get the same response from someone in China or Saudi Arabia.
>You might not get the same response from China or Saudi Arabia
In Saudi Arabia, if you’re not a man you might not even get a response. Or you could get beheaded.
[0]From Wikipedia:
In September 2011 a Sudanese migrant worker was beheaded for "sorcery",[37] ... Other forms of general discrimination, such as a lack of freedom of religion for non-Sunni Muslims, are also applicable.[12] ... The international organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) describes these conditions as "near-slavery" and attributes them to "deeply rooted gender, religious, and racial discrimination".[12] ... Trade unions, strikes, and collective bargaining are banned for both Saudi citizens and foreigners alike.[32]
The argument of what would be better if we started from scratch will hopefully never be relevant since most of us are in nations with multiple cultures.
> cultural purity
What next no-argument will you show up with, Rasenwahn of the Third Reich or Eugenics?
The OP said that
> the argument for a homogeneous culture is easy to make
and you end the discussion by speaking of the devil and the devil shows up?
Some people want to keep their culture, so you can either force them to change, move them, kill them, or stay multicultural. To avoid being terrible you just have to let others be and trust them even though they are different.
I don't believe I'm exaggerating that cultural homogeneity is a really ugly idea with a terrible history and it is hard to make an argument for it on a national scale.
The U.S. used to do it to a certain extent. It was a part of the process of becoming American by joining the "melting pot" of cultures and becoming genuinely American. The idea of multiculturalism in America is relatively recent.
I don't see that many new ideas other than incremental improvements on things that are essentially from the Apollo/Concorde age.
You see, when people do not share language, they are culturally isolated. I do not believe in forcefully imposing some American culture on all immigrants. What I want is cultural mixing, as has happened throughout America's history, but this can only happen within the context of a shared language.
It's baffling to me that some people are so resistant to this basic idea of linguistic unity. Building and maintaining a strong nation, just like building and maintaining any relationship or community, requires effort and care. Sure it takes effort to learn English, but the fruits of this effort are a stronger more united America and is an important step for new immigrants integrating into the American family. Remember that in the process of integration, there is also sharing, cooperation and community building.
The problem, at least from my perspective, is that the issue is so often used as a proxy for less noble motives.
In speaking a common language we gain tremendously both in unity and the opportunity for increased cultural sharing. Imagine a family in which everyone speaks different languages. There would be little interaction; the family would fall apart. Nations have historically fractured in this way along linguistic boundaries, and by not encouraging a single language in a country, we invite division, balkanization and national fracturing.
I'm curious as to why you are against a single language dominating in a country. Are you uncomfortable with people being expected to make the effort to learn a new language? Or do you just not care about nations (or the USA in particular) as units and don't mind if they fall apart.
You'd have the French, German, Dutch, English, native tribes, Spanish...
The issue usually isn't ethnic tensions, it's usually disenfranchisement expressing itself through nationalism.
The fact that the narratives in most countries continue to be built from the basic assumption that those with power are superior is a pretty basic failing of the promise of the internet in my mind.