Hacker News Reader

Comment by letrowekwel | Hacker News Reader

IMO the main problem is the arbitrary way borders were drawn in Africa by colonialists. Too many ethnicities that didn't get along very well suddenly shared a common state, while others were split between many countries. When even much richer and educated areas have problems with multiculturalism of much smaller scale (the Balkans, Spain, Belgium for example), it's not surprising that countries like DR Congo with over 200 languages spoken are basically ungovernable through democratic means. The border situation isn't anywhere near as bad in South America and most of Asia - and even there countries which lack common national identity tend to be less stable than others.

Peaceful coexistence of many cultures within the same society is a nice idea, but in reality it's very hard to do right due to the tribal nature of our specie. Highly successful multicultural countries appear to be an exception, rather than a norm.

View on HN

  > Highly successful multicultural countries appear to be an exception, rather than a norm.

Them why is this "ideal" of multiculturalism so heavily pushed in media and government action?

I personally speak four languages conversationally and from my familiarity, I cannot imagine even these similar cultures agreeing on enough basic values to form a stable society. How could dozens of cultures with different values and worldviews ever form a body of law that respects each tribe's values, customs, and interests?

Because it’s hard to achieve yet America and many other multicultural nations must achieve it or fall apart. You do hard things by trying to do them.

By the popular conception of "diversity," these arbitrary dividing lines should certainly be a strength and not a weakness. It's telling that "mixing different cultures together" becomes a reason in hindsight that an African country fails , but looking to the future is supposed to be a reason a Western country (or company, etc.) will succeed. It's difficult to see how these claims can both be true.

I don't think the language thing covers it.

Plenty of European countries have more than one language, only recently got 1 unified language.

You have countries like India that manage to make a cohesive country out of disparate peoples.

That's not to say these aren't contributing factors.

My current 'theory' / observation is that sub Saharan Africa never really had large scale civilisations, I wonder if that colours their conception of what a nation state is. Eg, if you think in terms of tribes. Perhaps that hinders scaling up to something bigger.

Why even scale anything up?

If these peoples have been living and fighting and reproducing successfully for millennia, why do Europeans and Americans think it necessary to get group them into states and force them to form large-scale heterogeneous bodies of law? Does that just make it easier to remove the mineral wealth from the continent?

Very true.

Or do they need to develop their own concept of the state, or at the risk of sounding imperialistic, do they need to learn the concept of the nation state?

Broadly speaking I would say having structures larger than a tribe is a net benefit. Whatever form that may take.

>Or do they need to develop their own concept of the state, or at the risk of sounding imperialistic, do they need to learn the concept of the nation state?

Western governments need to stop assassinating leaders and toppling democratically elected governments every few years for that to happen. That hasnt stopped and it has a chilling effect, which is the purpose.

When was the last time a democratically elected government toppled or assassinated in Africa by the west?

Would making each tribe its own country be that much better?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com