But to he honest, all Multicultural states fell apart just from a little bit of external pressure because of their internal weakness.
To be quite honest, this question cannot be given a straightforward answer because it depends on what is ones definition of "bad" and "multicultural". Also there is alot of nuance involved and therefore the answer would need to take this into account. So I will expand upon what I said earlier.
There are three different types of "multiculturalism", represented by various historical as well as modern examples, (and this is just from my personal observation). Three examples which stood out to me are Russia, America and Pakistan (Switzerland can also be used as a similar example to Pakistan's case).
The
Imperial "multicultural" example: Historically all classical civilizations come under this category (Rome, Greece, Persia, Arabs/various Islamic Empires, etc.). This one entails a hierarchical order in which the central core of this state is made up of the ethnic driving force/original founders of the state, while all of those who were conquered were incorporated into this state but were kept in a subordinate position as quasi subjects even if given autonomy within their own internal affairs. Modern Russia (implicitly, since Imperial times) is an example of this where the Russo-Slavic people dominate both the military and government of Russia and form its core whilst the other groups are under their influence and accept this hierarchical order because each group understands its position within this hierarchy. There is no confusion of ones place, there is clarity, even if a particular people might detest its subordinate position, it will still accept it as long as the central core of this imperial hierarchy remains strong and their group can continue to reap the benefits of being its subordinates.
The
Liberal Democratic "multicultural" example: like all states there is a founding ethnic/racial stock that conquers and establishes the roots of the Liberal Democratic society. However, overtime in the name of a vague concept of "equality" the original founding stock is undermined to artificially elevate the conquered and subordinate groups. Because "equality" is the goal there is no clear cut role for any of the groups consisting this society, and thus you have confusion and resentment, low social trust, etc. where the different groups are competing against one another and where even if one group excels at climbing the social ladder due to it's own merit it is perceived as "cheating" by less successful groups and accused of things like "racism" and other social shaming tactics to bring it down. America and Britain come to mind here. One can also include other Western Democratic countries within thos category.
Now we come to examples of countries like Pakistan (and Switzerland). Is Pakistan a "multicultural" (in the sense that word is commonly used by mostly Westerners) country?
Yes and
No.
Yes because there is a variety of ethnic groups that have their own culture and history as well as there are minority religious groups.
No because due to centuries of close proximity coexistence as well as shared historical roots (Indo-Aryan heritage) & experiences Pakistanis of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds have (for the most part) been molded into a single unified nation, thanks mostly to Islam. A Pakistani Punjabi Muslim does not want to form an independent Punjab with India's Punjabis who are Sikh. Similarly most Pakistani pashtuns do not want to merge with Afghans, even if the latter are Muslims. One can argue the reasons as to why they don't want to merge with Afghans, and sure social stability is one factor, but so is historical factor of shared experiences. This is why Bangladesh's inclusion with Pakistan was a mistake because they did not share our roots or our historical experiences and were a completely different nation of people in terms of ethnicity and culture.
I think the Swiss are a good example too where French, Germans and Italians, three ethnic groups who's namesake countries had been at war with each other numerous times in history, yet here they are coexisting peacefully. Because a French has more in common with a German and Italian than he does with a Gambian or a Uzbek, and over time the very few differences that did exist between a Swiss French and Swiss German and Swiss Italian were smoothed over.
@Nilgiri @Psychic @Metanoia @LeGenD @OsmanAli98
And what exactly is multicultural.
True, see my post above.
And what exactly is multicultural. I mean by one measure UK, Switzerland are prime examples of very succesful multicultural states. Scots, Welsh, Ulters union [UK]. The German, Italian, French federation [Swiss].
As for UK being a "successful" state, one would have to see by what parameters that is being judged on.
For example, to know if something is good one would have to see if it has made any improvement over what it replaced (monocultural society). Multiculturalism is a social phenomenon, therefore have social factors improved under multiculturalism over its monocultural predecessor society?
Social indicators like
general social trust (without which no society can exist) should be looked into and are good indicators of whether it was a success and thus a good thing or a failure and thus a bad thing.
Because religion is a part of culture.
