Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
kfools

Resolved: Multi cultural society is bad for the majority ethnicities.

1AC

Since Kfools Seems to be back this debate is now reopened for additional submissions... If none are found after 48 hours starting 7:00am 5/19/20  it will be locked and a winner declared.

Message added by 1AC

Question

Evidence for my resolution.

 

1. No society other than what is considered "The west" embraces multi cultural or multi race societies.

 

2. Countries that do have limited amounts of minorities never let them anywhere close to being a majority.

 

3. All non white majority nations are not considered racist for not allowing other ethnicities into thier nations. Only white nations are.

 

4. Countries that have less minorities compared to the dominate race are considered happier nations than multi cultural nations.

 

"According to the 2019 Happiness Report, Finland is the happiest country in the world, with Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and The Netherlands holding the next top positions. The World Happiness Report 2018 ranks 156 countries by their happiness levels, and 117 countries by the happiness of their immigrants."

 

These countries have very little diversity. 

Finland Demographics Finland is very ethnically homogeneous. Most of the population is ethnic Finnish. 
 
 

 

5. The United States had a super majority of one race until 1965.

In 1965, 84% of Americans were non-Hispanic whites. 

 

A homogenous population with far less societal problems than we have currently. Divorce rates were lower,crime was lower.and single parents were lower.

 

 

These facts lead me to resolve that multi cultural/racial societies are not good for the majority race/ethnicities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
10 hours ago, kfools said:

Evidence for my resolution.

1. No society other than what is considered "The west" embraces multi cultural or multi race societies.

2. Countries that do have limited amounts of minorities never let them anywhere close to being a majority.

3. All non white majority nations are not considered racist for not allowing other ethnicities into thier nations. Only white nations are.

4. Countries that have less minorities compared to the dominate race are considered happier nations than multi cultural nations.

"According to the 2019 Happiness Report, Finland is the happiest country in the world, with Denmark, Norway, Iceland, and The Netherlands holding the next top positions. The World Happiness Report 2018 ranks 156 countries by their happiness levels, and 117 countries by the happiness of their immigrants."

These countries have very little diversity. 

Finland Demographics Finland is very ethnically homogeneous. Most of the population is ethnic Finnish. 

 

5. The United States had a super majority of one race until 1965.

In 1965, 84% of Americans were non-Hispanic whites. 

A homogenous population with far less societal problems than we have currently. Divorce rates were lower,crime was lower.and single parents were lower.

 

These facts lead me to resolve that multi cultural/racial societies are not good for the majority race/ethnicities.

IN OPPOSITION TO:

 

Framing the Debate

I respond to this debate topic from the perspective of a US Citizen and limit my response to a multi-cultural society as it pertains to the United States of America.  My basis for limiting the discussion to the US is based upon a statement made by the OP in his premise.  The OP said: "The United States had a super majority of one race until 1965. In 1965, 84% of Americans were non-Hispanic whites."  Based upon this, my framing of the debate to limit discourse concerning the premise as applied to the U.S. is appropriate.

 

Basis for my Opposition

The OP states that a multi-cultural society is bad for the majority ethnicities. Let me first point out, by using the plural of ethnicity, "ethnicities", the OP acknowledges that there is no singular ethnicity which is actually dominant in the US.  If you believe I am wrong, then who exactly are these "majority ethnicities"?  English descendants and Black Descendants from Congo and Angola?  The Scots-Irish, German and Gaelic Irish descendants?  Which combination of "ethnicities" makes up the majority?  You see what I mean, right off, the OP seems to intuitively understand that there is no one ethnic majority in the US. 

 

Second, even if we lump in all Whites as one ethnicity (are Jews included? Iranians? Phoenicians?) just so we can further this debate, I submit that the United States and everything it stands for was founded upon the integration of people from many different cultures and ethnicities from it's very founding.  Before our country declared its independence from England, our nation was already made up of large percentages of Prussians, French, Blacks originally from the Angola/Congo region of Africa, Irish, Jews, Swedes and Dutch.  It was the presence of all of these people and the desire to create a new nation, one which treated people as equals, which inspired our Founding Fathers and those who fought to separate from England to embark on this new, unprecedented journey of creating a unique nation.  One with guaranties of freedom to all people.  I acknowledge that those guaranties took nearly 80 years and a civil war from the country's founding to get this country to recognize freedom for everyone, but this did happen. 

 

As opposed to countries like Germany, who cast off, enslaved and slaughtered those who's ethnicities differed from pure Aryan, the United States has always strived toward freedom and incorporating new ethnic groups into our culture.   After the Civil War, it would have been all too easy for the Union to engage in a program of rounding up all of the freed negros and either exterminating them or transporting them back to Africa, but that is not what America did. 

 

The OP says that "Countries that have less minorities compared to the dominate race are considered happier nations than multi cultural nations."   Of course, he simply makes this statement without providing any support for it.  But, is it even close to being true?  When Germany went on a mission to enslave and then exterminate German Jews, were the German Jews "happier" because of this decision?  Was Germany as a nation "happier" during and after the 1940's?  Were Germany's neighbors, France, Holland, Switzerland and Poland happier nations?  I submit that these nations were far from "happier" and were sickened to their core by what happened.

 

The OP states that  "Countries that do have limited amounts of minorities never let them anywhere close to being a majority."  Does the OP mean like France, with its huge populations of Muslims?  Or Sweden, or Holland?  All of which now have "no-go" areas where they have all but ceded parts of their country to the Muslim minority.  Sweden, Germany, France and England must now regulate the speech of their own native citizens so that they do not "offend" ethnic minorities, whom they fear will rise up and attack them.  Or, what about African nations like Angola and Sudan, where nearly everyone is negroid.  Does the OP believe those people are better off than we Americans with our many cultures and ethnicities? Or what about the Chinese?  Perhaps the OP believes this mono-cultural society is much better off than the one we currently liven in; if that is the case, then why are so many of them trying to flee China with as much money as they can manage smuggle into the United States?  Russia - is that a "happy place"?  Seriously, which country or countries is the OP even speaking of here!

 

The OP points to Finland as having "little diversity" and citing some happiness report which says it is the happiest nation on earth.  But, when the UN crowned Finland as the "world's happiest nation", this was completely bogus.  In fact, the mere fact that it would declare such a thing raised quite a few skeptical eyebrows.  The truth is that Finland's suicide rate has consistently been the second highest in the world, behind Hungary (another ethnically homogeneous nation).  https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2019/04/13/finland-from-suicide-hotspot-to-worlds-happiest-country.html.  While the suicide rates in Finland have fallen some since the 1990's, this had nothing to do with ethnic homogeneity, but more to do with Finns learning how other cultures express feelings rather than keeping them bottled up inside.  Even today however, many Finns still describe themselves as depressed and prone to melancholy, and admit to frowning on public displays of joyfulness.  https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2019/04/13/finland-from-suicide-hotspot-to-worlds-happiest-country.html.

 

Now, I do believe that in a country, like ours, which has historically accepted and tolerated immigrants from many other cultures, there should be a push or drive toward some level of conformity and a common American culture and value.   I do not believe the other extreme, like in France where Muslims are permitted to be enclaves unto themselves, is healthy for a country either.  Still, on an overall basis, I believe that the United States in general is a happy, desirable place to live.  Certainly we have far more people attempting to emigrate to our country than others, and hardly anyone fleeing the US to other countries - that has to say quite a lot about the success and even the happiness of the people who call themselves Americans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, Skans said:

IN OPPOSITION TO:

 

Framing the Debate

I respond to this debate topic from the perspective of a US Citizen and limit my response to a multi-cultural society as it pertains to the United States of America.  My basis for limiting the discussion to the US is based upon a statement made by the OP in his premise.  The OP said: "The United States had a super majority of one race until 1965. In 1965, 84% of Americans were non-Hispanic whites."  Based upon this, my framing of the debate to limit discourse concerning the premise as applied to the U.S. is appropriate.

Response to the debate framing by Skans: I accept these terms as the frame for the debate. Further I appreciate the narrow definition. 

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

Basis for my Opposition

 

 

Response to opposition:

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

 

The OP states that a multi-cultural society is bad for the majority ethnicities. Let me first point out, by using the plural of ethnicity, "ethnicities", the OP acknowledges that there is no singular ethnicity which is actually dominant in the US. 

I disagree. Using the plural reference can apply to multiple ethnic whites under the same race. For instance Irish and scottish. Both have the same basic cultural identity and are the same race but can be argued to be different ethnicities as defined.  

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

If you believe I am wrong, then who exactly are these "majority ethnicities"?  English descendants and Black Descendants from Congo and Angola?  The Scots-Irish, German and Gaelic Irish descendants?  Which combination of "ethnicities" makes up the majority?  You see what I mean, right off, the OP seems to intuitively understand that there is no one ethnic majority in the US. 

My reference is to the majority whites who came from what is largely defined as the west. This would include Most of Europe,Australia, North America.

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

Second, even if we lump in all Whites as one ethnicity (are Jews included? Iranians? Phoenicians?) just so we can further this debate, I submit that the United States and everything it stands for was founded upon the integration of people from many different cultures and ethnicities from it's very founding.

Argument against this postulation: Most settlers who came to the United states clear up until 1965 were Whites with very little cultural differences. They can be defined technically as a different ethnicity but it's a meritless distinction. This is because what we are talking about is cultural integration, I would like to see the Evidence that from it's founding non whites were allowed to immigrate en masse to the United States, or that our strength came from different cultures rather than assimilation of mostly similar white cultures. 

 

How similar were these cultures? 

 

 

You can find these arguments backed up by colonial trends here. 

 

https://www.facinghistory.org/nobigotry/religion-colonial-america-trends-regulations-and-beliefs

 

In the early years of what later became the United States, Christian religious groups played an influential role in each of the British colonies, and most attempted to enforce strict religious observance through both colony governments and local town rules.

 

This is powerful evidence that there was no real diversity in our founding or original settling. 

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

  Before our country declared its independence from England, our nation was already made up of large percentages of Prussians, French, Blacks originally from the Angola/Congo region of Africa, Irish, Jews, Swedes and Dutch.  It was the presence of all of these people and the desire to create a new nation, one which treated people as equals, which inspired our Founding Fathers and those who fought to separate from England to embark on this new, unprecedented journey of creating a unique nation.  One with guaranties of freedom to all people.  I acknowledge that those guaranties took nearly 80 years and a civil war from the country's founding to get this country to recognize freedom for everyone, but this did happen. 

Argument against this opinion:Skans references English,Prussians, French,Irish, Swedes,and Dutch as majority settlers. All of whom he cites as being different cultures when in fact they were very similar. They all held Christian religious beliefs by and large, were largely white, and all held the same general holidays and convictions. The blacks who were here were not settlers but were slaves with no rights at all and therefore should not be lumped in with settlers who were here as being part of multi cultural-ism/multi racial-argument as a strength.

 

You may find references to slave codes here. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

As opposed to countries like Germany, who cast off, enslaved and slaughtered those who's ethnicities differed from pure Aryan, the United States has always strived toward freedom and incorporating new ethnic groups into our culture.   After the Civil War, it would have been all too easy for the Union to engage in a program of rounding up all of the freed negros and either exterminating them or transporting them back to Africa, but that is not what America did. 

Objection: In this section Skans attempts to move the goal post several hundred years forward to after the national establishment referenced. In his reference to "Framing the debate he focused on early founding as his linchpin for diversity being a strength and has now moved the conversation forward by a long period of time without tying the two thoughts together. So I cannot respond in a way that is congruent. Here he references Germany in the 1940's and the civil war. 

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

The OP says that "Countries that have less minorities compared to the dominate race are considered happier nations than multi cultural nations."   Of course, he simply makes this statement without providing any support for it. But, is it even close to being true?  When Germany went on a mission to enslave and then exterminate German Jews, were the German Jews "happier" because of this decision?  Was Germany as a nation "happier" during and after the 1940's?  Were Germany's neighbors, France, Holland, Switzerland and Poland happier nations?  I submit that these nations were far from "happier" and were sickened to their core by what happened.

Argument: Was any nation happier during wartime? A reference to these same countries during a war does not make a good case for why the demographics are happier during a super majority of one race/ethnicity. 

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

Argument: I did indeed provide support for my argument. In my link I prove that that the happiest nations are those where the demographics are a super majority one race/ethnicity. I cited this in my opening argument which is powerful evidence skans has yet to debunk. 

 

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

The OP states that  "Countries that do have limited amounts of minorities never let them anywhere close to being a majority."  Does the OP mean like France, with its huge populations of Muslims?  Or Sweden, or Holland?  All of which now have "no-go" areas where they have all but ceded parts of their country to the Muslim minority.  Sweden, Germany, France and England must now regulate the speech of their own native citizens so that they do not "offend" ethnic minorities, whom they fear will rise up and attack them.  Or, what about African nations like Angola and Sudan, where nearly everyone is negroid.  Does the OP believe those people are better off than we Americans with our many cultures and ethnicities? Or what about the Chinese?  Perhaps the OP believes this mono-cultural society is much better off than the one we currently liven in; if that is the case, then why are so many of them trying to flee China with as much money as they can manage smuggle into the United States?  Russia - is that a "happy place"?  Seriously, which country or countries is the OP even speaking of here!

Reference: Skans makes my very point for me by referencing minority no go zones in countries with super majorities of one race. Further he references non white nations who do not allow immigration such as China and Russia because those nations do not want to deal with the no go areas other super majority countries have to deal with when they allow this kind of immigration. 

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

 

The OP points to Finland as having "little diversity" and citing some happiness report which says it is the happiest nation on earth.  But, when the UN crowned Finland as the "world's happiest nation", this was completely bogus.  In fact, the mere fact that it would declare such a thing raised quite a few skeptical eyebrows.  The truth is that Finland's suicide rate has consistently been the second highest in the world, behind Hungary (another ethnically homogeneous nation).  https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2019/04/13/finland-from-suicide-hotspot-to-worlds-happiest-country.html.  While the suicide rates in Finland have fallen some since the 1990's, this had nothing to do with ethnic homogeneity, but more to do with Finns learning how other cultures express feelings rather than keeping them bottled up inside.  Even today however, many Finns still describe themselves as depressed and prone to melancholy, and admit to frowning on public displays of joyfulness.  https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2019/04/13/finland-from-suicide-hotspot-to-worlds-happiest-country.html.

Counter evidence. 

 

1. Skans postulation "The truth is that Finland's suicide rate has consistently been the second highest in the world, behind Hungary" Is completely false. Here is the proof. We will break down suicide rates per capita for an accurate measurement. 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/ This source is backed by WHO per 100,000

 

Flag Country Suicide Rank  Total Suicide Rate Male Suicide Rate Female Suicide Rate Total Per Year
LT.png Lithuania 1 31.9 58.1 9.5 894
RU.png Russia 2 31 55.9 9.4 45,178
GY.png Guyana 3 29.2 43.7 14.4 227
KR.png South Korea 4 26.9 38.4 15.4 13,765
BY.png Belarus 5 26.2 46.9 8.2 2,477
SR.png Suriname 6 22.8 34.7 10.9 131
KZ.png Kazakhstan 7 22.5 38.3 7.6 4,122
UA.png Ukraine 8 22.4 41.1 6.3 9,911
LV.png Latvia 9 21.2 37.6 7.3 409
LS.png Lesotho

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can clearly see Finland isn't even in the top ten. Finland in fact is number 23 

FI.png Finland 23 15.9 23.9 8.1

 

This in fact proves that Skans evidence is categorically false. 

 

Also suicide rates are not proof or disproof of a country thriving or not due to multi/culturalism or racial demographics.

 

We should be looking at HOMICIDE rates instead. 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Skans said:

 

Now, I do believe that in a country, like ours, which has historically accepted and tolerated immigrants from many other cultures, there should be a push or drive toward some level of conformity and a common American culture and value.   I do not believe the other extreme, like in France where Muslims are permitted to be enclaves unto themselves, is healthy for a country either.  Still, on an overall basis, I believe that the United States in general is a happy, desirable place to live.  Certainly we have far more people attempting to emigrate to our country than others, and hardly anyone fleeing the US to other countries - that has to say quite a lot about the success and even the happiness of the people who call themselves Americans.

 

I would like to see more evidence this is true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Quote

I disagree. Using the plural reference can apply to multiple ethnic whites under the same race. For instance Irish and scottish. Both have the same basic cultural identity and are the same race but can be argued to be different ethnicities as defined.  

IN REBUTTAL TO:

 

You conflate "cultural" with "ethnicity" and also with "white" - which is generally thought of as a race.  Let me remind you that your premise was: "Multi cultural society is bad for the majority ethnicities."  Your example of Irish and Scottish having the same basic cultural identity is patently false.  Irish people descend from Gaul (mostly modern day France), which was a region of Western Europe during the Iron Age that was inhabited by Celtic tribes. Even today, most Irish speak Irish Gaelic and are more ethnically more homogeneous than are Scots.  The Scots, are ethnically different than the Irish, being predominantly Anglo-Saxon and Norse, with some amount of much older Pict and old Gaelic influences.   They have different origins, cultures, language and religions, which have lead to perpetual wars between these distinct ethnic groups.   When you say "My reference is to the majority whites who came from what is largely defined as the west", this reveals your shallow understanding (along with many Americans')of the ethnic makeup and history of various groups of Europeans.  Many of these European ethnicity are still today quite distinct, culturally, linguistically and even genetically so.

 

Quote

Argument against this postulation: Most settlers who came to the United states clear up until 1965 were Whites with very little cultural differences.

IN REBUTTAL TO:

This is obviously false.  There were waves of Swedes, Catholic-Irish, Italians, Scots-Irish, French, Russians, Germans, Pols, all of whom have very different languages, cultures, and are even genetically distinguishable.  Moreover, many of these groups, when they emigrated to the United states suffered discrimination at the hands of those who were already here.  Swedes were thought of as dumb, intellectually inferior.  Pols refereed to as dumb Polacks.  Catholic Irish  - NINA.  French Cajuns.  Italian - Wop, Spick, and Dago; I could go on, but I think you should get the point by now.  However, you ignorantly and incorrectly lump all of these groups together as ethnically "White".   It's like saying Amish and Hasidic Jews are ethnically the same because  they both speak some kind of German, wear similar clothes, are closed societies and once lived in a similar part of Europe.

 

Quote

They can be defined technically as a different ethnicity but it's a meritless distinction.

IN REBUTTAL TO:

Like I said, does anyone think the distinctions between Hasidics and the Amish are meritless? 

 

Quote

This is because what we are talking about is cultural integration, I would like to see the Evidence that from it's founding non whites were allowed to immigrate en masse to the United States,

IN REBUTTAL TO:

Slave boats packed full with negro slaves?  How is that not en masse immigration?  You can't argue that it "wasn't allowed".  Whites were paying to have them brought here!

 

Quote

or that our strength came from different cultures rather than assimilation of mostly similar white cultures. 

IN REBUTTAL TO:

Like I've pointed out, it is a false start to claim "white" cultures were similar at all.  They were in fact quite different. Religion, language, climate, genetics - all different.

 

Quote

Objection: In this section Skans attempts to move the goal post several hundred years forward to after the national establishment referenced. In his reference to "Framing the debate he focused on early founding as his linchpin for diversity being a strength and has now moved the conversation forward by a long period of time without tying the two thoughts together. So I cannot respond in a way that is congruent. Here he references Germany in the 1940's and the civil war. 

Argument: Was any nation happier during wartime? A reference to these same countries during a war does not make a good case for why the demographics are happier during a super majority of one race/ethnicity. 

IN REBUTTAL TO:

I reject and rebut your objection.  We are discussing the United States and multi-cultural emigration.  Nowhere in your Premise or supporting statements do you limit this discussion to a particular time period.  Nor have I placed such a limitation on this debate. In fact, it was you who stated "The United States had a super majority of one race until 1965. In 1965, 84% of Americans were non-Hispanic whites", which if anything frames the time period from the founding of the Nation through 1965. 

Quote

1. Skans postulation "The truth is that Finland's suicide rate has consistently been the second highest in the world, behind Hungary" Is completely false. Here is the proof. We will break down suicide rates per capita for an accurate measurement. 

IN REBUTTAL TO:

I cited my source and stand by this as it relates to Finland.    https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2019/04/13/finland-from-suicide-hotspot-to-worlds-happiest-country.html.  Regardless, even using your table, the US is way down at #27.  https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/  Many of the top suicide nations are extremely homogeneous. You have proved my point that these societies are not happier than an ethnically diverse country.   There may be a number of factors which go into high suicide rates, culture being one, perhaps, but ethnic diversity is clearly not a factor.

 

You as the person stating a Premise have the job of proving up your premise, which was "Multi cultural society is bad for the majority ethnicities"  Nothing in the body of your OP supports this.  Yet, the biggest problem you have in trying to bolster your Premise is that you make a number of broad-based, unsupported and easily refuted presumptions.  All I have done is take each one of these and demonstrated critical flaws in your claimed support for the Premise.   While, intuitively some may want to agree with your premise-statement, your Premise ends up just limply flapping in the wind with no support for it at all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/7/2020 at 11:34 PM, kfools said:

All non white majority nations are not considered racist for not allowing other ethnicities into thier nations. Only white nations are.

 

 

Dunno that I want to engage in this debate simce its premise is so flawed. But consider this:

 

 

native2.jpg

 

 

 

 

How did the USA, Canada, Australia, & New Zealand become "white"?  Through death and colonialist violence.  Thus, advocates for indigenous folks will likely agree with you that multiculturalism leads to genocide for them.  

 

As for the USA, for the first 200 years or so of its colonization by Europeans, the majority language was Spanish.  Because of that many places such as Florida, Montana, Oregon, California, and other place have Spanish names.  Many streets & counties are also named in Spanish.  British, French, and other encroachments have always been condemned as being detrimental to the Spanish majority that grew during those 200 years.  Yet, nobody (especially from the right wing) seems to think that multiculturalism was a bad thing for them or the land.  

 

So the real question is, who is to determine which is to be the dominant culture which is the one encroaching?  Part of my ancestry is Native American but most of it is from Spanish settlers.  As such, my ancestors were here well most of yours were.  Thus, if we are not to have multiculturalism, you who condemn that matter need to excuse  yourselves and to leave this continent.  Is that something you would like to consider?  I wouldn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/8/2020 at 10:26 AM, Skans said:

The OP said: "The United States had a super majority of one race until 1965. In 1965, 84% of Americans were non-Hispanic whites."

 

 

 

But then, the government only allowed immigrants from Europe and Canada to enter into the USA.  Non whites from China, Africa, and other areas were routinely barred from entry.  Small wonder why the white percentage was so high.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...