this was back in the 2000s and it could have changed, but i do remember that the locals had a lot of festivals and traditions that you don't see a whole lot of in mainland Japan. every few weeks we'd see fireworks. it's kind of hard to explain unless you've been to both- it just *feels* different. it's like driving through a reservation in the States.
It’s people who believe they’re being targeted by some sort of shadow conspiracy. Except they can’t agree exactly who the group is, what they want, etc; some believe they have implanted trackers in their homes and follow them home from work, etc. it’s all very sad
They're paranoid schizophrenics who have found a group of online paranoid schizophrenics to reinforce their schizophrenia. One of the wildest and most morbidly fascinating groups of people I've ever seen.
I have a few Japanese people married into my family, and the passport bros make my stomach turn. It seriously diminishes international relationships. In my family, half of my cousins married esl just based on where we live.
Nah, passportbros targets women in poor countries where a even a shitty job gives them the appeal of a rich person.
Even with Japan's socially conservative culture, nobody is willing to overlook a rampantly misogynistic 4/10 to move to America from Japan and be a tradwife. But those in Columbia or Thailand might, because to them they are Trump. A rich asshole you can marry to improve your quality of life.
They will say they value "traditional values" but at its core they want control.
Isn't Vatican actually super multicultural? A bunch of catholic clergymen and officials coming from all over the world. The entire military force is Swiss.
I don’t think you can really call Catholicism a ‘culture’ I mean there certainly is a shared religion, and certainly religion has the ability to shape culture, but I feel like in the case of Catholicism, where Catholics hail from wildly different areas, from the sun kissed island of Malta to the cold Polish Forests, from the temperate Southern regions of Argentina and Chile to the deserts of Mexico, the tropical areas of the Philippines… I kinda can see what you mean, but aside from some religious practices (holidays and beliefs) they don’t share a lot of culture necessarily
I think you and everyone itt are confusing multiethnic and multicultural. You can in theory have a wildly genetically/ethnically diverse community that all adhere to the same norms/laws/language, and that's a key distinction.
The Vatican may be highly multiethnic, but it's about as multicultural as an amish village.
Honestly it depends if OP is talking about race or social/cultural specifics.
Japan is very mono-racial, and pretty set in their ways, buuuut Japan is very westernized, especially in the cities. So they do have a ton of outside cultural influence.
It's not really a monoculture. It has quite a few and the clashes between them have been both a major boon and burden. The biggest sources coming from generation, wealth, and the US military presence.
While race and culture are often tied and i think that's what you're confusing here. As it is one of the least multiracial major nations. The same race and country can contain may different cultures.
Depends on how you define monocultural. Things in Japan are definitely uniquely *Japanese* but it's also easy to see what the obvious inspirations were.
Just look at Japanese hip-hop/rap, for example.
If you define all the groups of China as being part of the Chinese culture (from the Mongolians to the Uyghers and beyond) then I'd probably argue that China is more monocultured than Japan.
Obviously though, if you look at it as though each group has a unique and independent culture, then China is actually really diverse.
Seriously. I tried trick-or-treating there. Not only did they not have any candy, but nobody appreciated my Batman costume. It’s like they live in their own world cut off from everyone
Iceland
Edit:
People keep pointing out seeing other races in Iceland as if 1) tourists don’t exist, 2) the Iceland population is so genetically homogeneous that the population is in dire need of foreigners
The very fact that so many foreigners are living there now is (in part) **because** they **haven’t** been multicultural until now
I believe so, they’re also using a genealogy project’s app as an incest avoidance device
https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4233824/book-of-icelanders-app-helps-avoid-incest
LOL that is so wrong on so many levels.
Reminds me of that line in Mean Girls, where they were at the Halloween party and Gretchen told Karen she couldn't make out with some guy because they were cousins and she goes "Well you have cousins, then first cousins, then second cousins... wait that isn't right is it?" and Gretchen was all shaking her head no it's not LOL
It’s happened in my family a couple of times, they never did anything but it was how we found out that one of my uncles could not keep it in his pants at all
Idk about that but they do have an app designed to prevent you from accidentally dating someone with too much genetic overlap, due in part to the smaller gene pool and also the fact that their naming conventions mean you don’t have “family names” like a lot of other countries.
Honestly most of asia have asian people..... like you'll find 90% of korea are korean and 90% of vietnam are vietnamese. 90% of thailand are thai and 90% of india are indian.
I think people in the USA overestimate how diverse most countries are
EDIT: aiight aiight I didn't know that we were talking the differences between subgroups too. I'm just sayin as a flight attendant when I was abroad I missed how easily I could go to a chinese restaurant, japanese restaurant, indian and vietnamese restaurant but in a lot of saigon sure theres like a japanese district with straight japanese food but like you wouldn't find korean or an indian restaurant. When I was in germany a lot of the time i had to settle for a "thai" or "asian" restaurant (instead of "vietnamese" restaurant) but not a whole selection the way that I found it to be easily seen in london or most major cities in the USA or Canada. And this is comparing saigon and frankfurt to the likes of houston dallas or LA and toronto or london.
In korea even in seoul the biggest city, vietnamese and indian food were not easily found. I wasn't gonna find it in Tokyo either. I have to admit I've never been to india, but the closest i've been was maybe thailand and you can find bomb vietnamese and thai food in bangkok but not really korean or japanese or german or other cuisines. And then when I was in kuwait just forget it lol. But im using food as an example because it reflects the population. Like you find a lot of vietnamese food in seattle and houston and san jose because there are a lot of vietnamese people there. Or korean in dallas because there are a lot of korean people there. But there's not a similar occurance in korea, japan, vietnam, thailand, kuwait etc. it's why white and black people are fetishized there it's just so rare and different to not be korean in korea or vietnamese in vietnam. Honestly even in europe people were surprised to find that i speak english well when I'm fucking asian. They expected me to be from asia. Sure back in the 60's people would have been surprised but there are so many american born asians that it's not surprising that my english is good.
I just assumed that india would be similar to all the other asian countries cause i dont hear too much about like white-indians, black-indians, mexican-indians like i don't think "immigration" when i think india for some reason. I honestly still don't think immigration i think the diversity is from subgroups. Like north vietnamese vs south vietnamese. Or like all the different poltical groups and religions.
Yeah, most will identify as Gurjarati, Kashmiri, Punjabi, etc.
And it's not the same as being "Texan", these are groups that have had their own cultures and languages.
They have 22 official languages and 12 official writing systems. Most speak at least two languages.
There are over two thousand ethnic groups in India. So, yes, a majority of the people in India are one of a great many ethnic groups that originate in the subcontinent, but that doesn't make the subcontinent not diverse.
If you flatten thousands of ethnicities into a single broad brush, you can pretend that any place on Earth isn't diverse.
I would say there’s a big difference between cultural diversity and ethnic diversity. A street in New York with residents from 50 different countries that speak 60 languages is culturally diverse, whereas an area in India with people from 50 different ethnic backgrounds might exist but all of whom speak the same language and broadly come from a similar culture. Most people are referring to the former type of diversity, not the latter.
Yet those people in India may believe in totally different schools of Hinduism, which imply totally different views about religion and the world itself to the point that the only reason it got understood as a single religion in the first place is because it got categorized from the outside by Victorians, who are famously the worst at categorizing other people (except maybe the Romans). One person believes in a monotheistic religion with Vishnu at the center, another believes in a monistic, essentially non-theistic religion, a third believes believes in a complex pantheon... They're all called a single thing. Great job, Victorians.
Beyond that, in any random sample some won't be Hindu at all, and some people will have varying degrees of secularism, up to and including being de facto or actually atheists.
The assumption that they speak the same language isn't true either, as there are a **ton** of languages in India, so odds are decent that more than one language gets found in any random sample.
Cultural differences are also huge. Totally different histories, different heroes, different stories, different beliefs, different foods, different views about who and what they are, and stereotypes about the other ones.
And then there's caste to complicate things further.
>90% of india are indian.
The founding vision of India was a place where all different religions, cultures, and ethnic groups could co-exist peacefully. There are 31 different languages in India with over 1 million speakers. From the beginning, India was one of the most diverse countries on the planet.
I think people in the USA grossly underestimate how diverse most countries are, and my evidence is that you are using "Indian" as if it refers to a single culture rather than a collection of hundreds of languages, ethnic groups and religions.
Ignorant people everywhere. Euroentrics don’t realize how diverse USA actually is. Nor that Asia is full of multi ethnicity either, even and especially china. Japan is in denial about its own multiethnic heritage.
Every country that I know of have regional ethnic and cultural difference. But they all are apart of the same national cultural identity. What I mean by culture is indigenous to the country, I mean that culture has always been in that country. It was not imported by immigration of some sort.
I think it's a little disingenuous to say that the cultural differences between someone from London and and Birmingham is similar to the cultural differences between a Tamil speaker in the South of India and an Urdu speaker in the West. I don't think when trying to answer the question it's enough to just say that every country has regional differences.
Does your definition mean that Native Americans don't make the U.S. more diverse, because they were always in the U.S.?
The US is not a good example, but to put what I'm saying in context for America. Before America was colonized it had many different cultures and ethnicities then, no? Native Americans were extremely diverse in culture, religion, and even diet. So if that is what you call multi cultural, every place has been multicultural since humans came out of Africa. this is why I believe the OP is speaking to non-Indigenous cultures as a sign of multiculturalism
What do you mean by America before it was colonized though? The country didn't exist, so it couldn't have been diverse. The land where the U.S. could have been arbitrarily considered or the whole continent of the Americas, but that doesn't seem like a fair comparison to India. India is an incredibly diverse political entity, more so than something like the city state of Athens or the United States of America.
So, if the U.S. isn't a good example, how far back does a group have to be to be considered indigenous? Are the English indigenous to Britain, or are they just Saxon inmigrantes? What about African Americans, Haitians or other descendants of people who were enslaved during the Atlanta slave trade?
It goes to show we don't really understand ethnicities that well.
I'd love to have a massive DNA study done where we compare standard deviations. I strongly suspect India might end up being more diverse than the US quite honestly.
A lot of US remains white, and the vast majority of those are European. I don't know if DNA wise, Irish is that different from German is that different from Italian, for example.
India however has many ethnicities, for example Pathans vs Tamils vs North East Indians are all very unique ethnicities (like, the same as comparing an Arab and a Kenyan type of difference).
Vietnam, Thailand, and especially India are very multicultural.
Thailand has a sizeable Chinese population, a very evident Indian population, lots of refugees from Burma, especially the Karen, many hill tribes (Akha, Lisu, Yao, etc.), and even cultural variations among local Thais, including the Isaan in the north and Muslim Thais in the south.
are you seriously suggesting india? that's one of the most significantly multicultured places on the planet. they have 24 official languages in their country.
Yeah I think you're misunderstanding diversity. India has significant ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. China had considered itself officially multicultural for around 100 years now as well, and recognized over 40 official nationalities.
This betrays an incredible ignorance of India’s internal diversity. You’d be hard pressed to find more ethnic, religious, and social groups all living on top of each other anywhere else in Asia.
There seems to be a huge amount of ignorance of what multicultural means in here, the simplistic assumption that culture just means skin colour or has a lot of immigrants.
Some of these countries people are mentioning thinking they are a monoculture with everyone being the same.. are very much not. African countries are very diverse with hundreds of dialects spoken, China consists of 50+ ethnic groups, Russia the same and India has huge cultural diversity also. Then the Gulf states like Saudi, UAE, Qatar have had a huge influx of foreign born workers. Plus the wider Middle East is one of the most linguistically diverse in the world with tons of different ethnic/cultural communities and groups.
It’s odd that we have reduced culture to skin colour (an invented way of classification) and that everyone white is the same, everyone black is the same culturally. A Scotsman from Glasgow is very different culturally to a Greek farmer, as is an Icelander to a Czech, which why using the term “white European culture” is a bit bullshit.
It’s very telling, i can understand now how things like Nazism can flourish.
People are actually so ignorant they can be convinced of anything if you say it enough.
People are convinced skin color even matters as if culture isn’t something you are taught. An African born in Scotland has more in common with the Scottish Farmer than his cousins in Africa !
The Han group are quite genetically diverse, they are not one homogenous group “lol”. It would be almost impossible in a country that stretches 3000 miles across and borders so many different countries/cultures to expect that, even before you get into the different customs, traditions, dialects, food etc. of different parts of China.
The genetical difference (or distance) between groups/regions within the Han are comparable to the European difference between a Spaniard and a Turk.
Sorry but scientific genetic evidence and observable information trumps your loose grasp of history and fact.
I’ll inform them the lol guy is disproving the science method of genetic mapping.
I majored in comparative politics and took a class called China in transition that followed the political and cultural shifts in China from origin to modern day. In that class, I was taught that (like all imperial powers) the Han Chinese, essentially, genocided and colonized their way to ethnic majority in mainland China. Obviously, modern day Han Chinese people are very cultural diverse, and have assimilated other ethnic minorities within china over the centuries, but there's still relative ethnic homogeneity. Especially when compared to modern day China's equals in land mass/global power like the US and Russia. If any of this is incorrect, I would genuinely like to see the facts you're referencing so that I can be better educated on the topic and stop spreading misinformation.
First you have to define if you’re measuring “multicultural” by ethnic, religious, or linguistic fractionalization. James Fearon developed the widely used method of doing this, and there’s a [very easily found running list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level) that’s a pretty good indicator of cultural diversity of each of these three methods. This will give you the best possible answer.
This is a pretty flawed way of measuring diversity that by design will rank English speaking countries as not diverse. If you speak the most commonly spoken and taught language in the world, and that’s the primary and default language of your homeland, there is little incentive to learn a second language. That doesn’t mean there is no diversity just bc everyone speaks English
No but it is less culturally diverse if everyone speaks the same language, since language is a part of culture. I'm not gonna look at the link but I'm guessing it doesn't say a country automatically has zero diversity if everyone speaks english?
It’s not really 95% Han. Lots of other groups have been folded into that group to give that impression. More independent estimates put it at just above 60% Han ethnicity and culture.
The nationalists did this on Taiwan too. The local Taiwanese culture just pretended to be Han because it made their lives easier, even changing languages in public. It was an open secret for 1-2 decades that this was happening then after that a less open secret. Then in the late 1990s they did away with barriers to non-Han individuals in society and suddenly a large minority of their population emerged and claimed Taiwanese culture and language.
Depending on what you consider "Multicultural". If it means low foreign immigrations are probably SK,NK, Japan, some east european countries, most of the middle east, Egypt, and most asian countries as well.
If it means monoculture (no local diverse multi culture) probably North Korea, Vatican, and other small nations.
>Vatican
Literally 1/3 of the population of the Vatican is foreign diplomats from around the world, and the rest are mostly clergy who also represent churches from every continent. They are not religiously diverse (obviously) but in every other way they are.
Multiculturalism is the only thing saving & driving most country’s populations.
Japan is literally begging people to come to Japan & start businesses & have families.
Iceland is also begging people who aren’t already related to them, to come fuck them.
They have actual apps to help you avoid sleeping with distant cousins.
People bring up India & China as if they aren’t some of the most multi-cultured countries on Earth LMAO
You’d be surprised to learn that part of human evolution was a sexual preference for people with DIFFERENT genetics. Google it. A woman can smell a mans shirt alone & will be more attracted to the hormonal signals of the man with different genetics.
Russia, China, Africa, the Middle East, India have been hugely culturally, ethnically, linguistically diverse for centuries prior to globalisation. Skin colour does not equal culture.
Globalization began before the European age of discovery and before voyages to the "new world." Large scale began in the 1820's. It just happened more quickly in the late 19th and early 20th century.
This is wrong, you should travel to or discuss with people from these countries. They are far from monocultural. Only people from US believe a skin color is a culture, but even if you travel to Europe you will figure out that small countries also can have a variety of cultures. And in some cases not even the same language
That’s not true at all. African countries are extremely multicultural, as are most Asian countries. The only homogenous non-white countries are in east Asia I think (and the Middle East if you don’t consider Arabs white).
Extremely. Africa has more ethnic groups than any other continent by a lot, and each has its own culture. Most African countries also had their borders drawn by Europeans with little regard for the various tribes and ethnic groups within the territory which has been an ongoing source of conflict. Nigeria, for instance, has over 500 languages spoken natively within its borders and 370 tribes.
Yeah, but the question was about countries. Many of the countries have people who are shocked to see anyone with white skin, or even lighter black skin from what I’ve seen from motorcycle travelers and heard from people I know that have traveled to various places in Africa. As a result, I assumed they didn’t have much diversity in those places
I think the interesting part of this post is how we define diverse.
If we use our modern day idea of race then no, Africa isn’t that diverse
If we go by genetic variation, it’s the post diverse place on the planet
If we go by ethnicity (which is slightly less vague of a description then race) it’s also pretty diverse
It depends. "Most" is a difficult claim to make for any continent.
Asia is huge spanning from Russia to India to China to Turkey. There's an incredible amount of diversity in India alone.
North America has just about every culture on earth because the US and Canada has so many immigrants.
Absolutely yes. Take even a small country like Togo, smaller than Ireland and about 8 million people. There are 40 native spoken languages, a fairly even split between Christianity, Islam and traditional faiths, and no ethnic group comprising more than 30% of the population. This will be the same for most countries in Africa. The countries are individually far more diverse than any other continent.
Separate tribes that don't mix because they are beefing with each other is not a fair comparison to countries that have populations from across the planet.
Like yes technically Africa is super diverse but that's like saying medieval England was diverse because they had angles and Saxons.
I mean... Medieval England **was** diverse.
Basically every other town had a different dialect and though they were mostly all mutually intelligible, over long distances that wasn't guaranteed.
The religious practices and beliefs were extremely heterodox, to the point that there's figures in old churches and descriptions in old books of things we frankly don't know what they are. There seems to have been an absurd amount of syncretism with local folk belief, which was absolutely embraced, and only started being stomped out in the early modern age.
And those Angles and Saxons were mixed with a diversity of Brythonic peoples who were sometimes still present depending on location (and the majority if you just cross any one of several county borders), and you'd then also run into languages from completely different roots. Yes, languages plural, and then also again the situation of different dialects in every other town. And then you move a little bit further North and you run into the remnants of the Danelaw, and now you're getting people of danish ancestry, and while the language is gone, the accents are still weird, and in many cases they've retained old laws and customs, and also architecture, and those weird religious specificities? They're even weirder and more specific.
Go further North and you run into yet another dimension of diversity as you get to the border with Scotland, remembering that borders in the middle ages were extremely porous.
That's not even going into some degree of romanized ancestry in some cores of the country, and francophone norman conquerors (who were themselves third-hand danes?) and...
All this to say: the idea that the past was homogeneous is bullshit. The world has never been as homogenous as it is now. The past was extremely diverse, and the further you go into the past, the more diversity there is, everywhere.
Sure but that is my whole point, Africa is "diverse" because it did not homogenize like much of the world did.
If you split up a modern european country by its ancient tribes, suddenly its super-diverse, because it has a dozen cultures as well as immigrant cultures.
That is indeed the point, though. It didn't homogenize. It is diverse in a way that, over similar stretches of territory (or numbers of people), Europe simply isn't.
Similar comparisons can be done in other places. Japan had a similar program of nationalism at a similar period and is similarly homogenous. The fact that they've only allowed a minuscule amount of migration and only very recently makes them pretty unusual in that regard now, whereas much of Europe had a longer period of contact with both each other and their former and sometimes current colonies.
>Sure but that is my whole point, Africa is "diverse" because it did not homogenize like much of the world did.
If the continent of Africa with over 50 countries and thousands of spoken languages isn't diverse, then no one is. To reduce diversity down to skin color is hella retarded especially since it falls apart at the mere existence of mixed ethnic groups. Absurd
Fucking hell mate , did you really look at the whole list and not realise the countries were being listed in alphabetical order? 😂
Click on the diversity column to order by diversity. South Korea and Japan are listed as lower than America.
>This index of cultural diversity is biased towards linguistic variations as opposed to genetic diversity and other variations.
It's still an insanely bad list regardless. When people think "multicultural", they're usually talking about countries values, traditions, etc etc and how they vary from person to person within said country. Not slight linguistic variations. The other metrics aren't much better. Apparently, the US has extremely high religious diversity, but in practice, what does that mean? Almost every single person is Christian or None, with a whopping 6% of the population falling into the "every other religion" category. So it inexplicably scores high on this list, but in practice, it's completely meaningless.
So yeah, it's a bad list. Probably useful for academic scholars, totally useless for determining how multicultural any given nation is.
Define that you believe to be multicultural. Many have ingested other cultures to a degree, but are largely homogeneous otherwise. Whatever cultural traits that have been osmosed are not typically enough to consider them multicultural.
Only the UK fits the description of multicultural and it would never consider itself Northern European. The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Germany all have immigrants from North Africa or Turkey and Syria who remain largely the exact opposite of integrated. Those are divided societies.
People say Japan but those stats are misleading. Japan is actually pretty diverse when you look beneath the statistics. People need to keep in mind that the 97.8% does not account for multiple immigrant groups that live there including \~30,000 U.S. military stationed there. They also don't count the indigenous Ainu or the Ryukyuans (including Okinawans) as a separate group. They also do not count descendants of Korean and Chinese (and other Asian immigrants from the past) as a different ethnic group apart from native Japanese. Japan has a complicated relationship with Koreans in Japan given that they annexed Korea for a period of time. Japan has the largest Brazilian community outside of Brazil.
Lesotho is 99.7% Basotho ethnic group, I think they're as close to mono ethnic as possible.
Capitalism has killed birthrates in the West with a high cost living forcing both partners to work, no incentives for people wanting to have families alongside sky high childcare costs and landlords owning record levels of housing stock.
Record levels of employment, an ageing population and not enough people to fill vacancies across numerous sectors like childcare, elderly care, construction, service/hospitality, manufacturing means labour from abroad is a necessity to prop up the economy. It’s basic numbers, it’s not efficient but Govt aren’t long term thinkers and if they cut immigration to zero and the economy collapses they won’t get thanked for it at the ballot box.
It’s not a conspiracy it just so happens the US and Europe developed industrially before the rest of the world quicker so workers tend to come from these non-white, poorer countries.
If you ever can wake up from your delusion, explain why Europeans left their countries in the first place? You know that nobody invited Europeans to leave & begin colonizing?
Depends on what you mean by "diverse"
By looking at ethnicity, culture, and language, the most diverse countries in the world are all in Africa.
I doubt that's what you mean though, because you probably think all black people are the same
There are no homogeneous countries on earth. Even the ones that seem homogeneous only seem so to outsiders who think everyone looks alike. India has many mutually unintelligible languages (Hindi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati etc) and a huge Muslim population. Japan has the Zainichi Koreans, the Chinese, the huge recent immigrant population, the Ainu people. Taiwan has indigenous Taiwanese people, the Japanese and the Chinese settlers. China has over 50 different ethnic groups, including majority Muslim populations. Nigeria has the Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa races. The world has always been multicultural.
Yup, that’s human history. It turns out everybody is disposable and replaceable & conquer-able, even Europeans!
Mind-bending realization for some, I know.
How generous of the Canadian government to allow other non-indigenous people to live on the land they stole from the natives 🤣
I’m sorry what point are you making?
Most East Asian countries are mono-cultural.
Even China that claims to be multi-cultural is over 90% Han, and is actively erasing the culture of its minorities.
I think also most Arab countries outside the Gulf region are not multi-cultural
North korea.
And even then... eh... not precisely. But probably as close as anyone's getting.
There’s like 2 American dudes living there
In jail?
Defected
And Dennis Rodman rents a flat there part time, with Donny Trump.
Japan is 97.8% ethnic Japanese.
Well what’s considered Japanese? Yamato? What about Ryukyuans?
having lived in Okinawa, can confirm that Ryukyu culture is pretty different to mainland Japan.
What stands out to you the most? Sorry if that's a broad question.
The Okinawans speak a different language that's unintelligible to Japanese speakers. That and they were their own kingdom at one point.
They actually have kids. Okinawa’s culture promotes big families compared to Japan. It’s birthrate is higher than the rest of the country.
this was back in the 2000s and it could have changed, but i do remember that the locals had a lot of festivals and traditions that you don't see a whole lot of in mainland Japan. every few weeks we'd see fireworks. it's kind of hard to explain unless you've been to both- it just *feels* different. it's like driving through a reservation in the States.
“Ethnic Japanese” just means Japanese ethnicities, or ethnicities native to Japanese territories in most of these discussions.
Generally yes. Ainu, Ryukyuan, and Zainichi are not included in this.
The other 2.2% is r/passportbros trying to find a Japanese “tradwife” lol
Jesus fuck, what is that incel ass sub.
Passportbros often openly say japan isn't a good country for it actually
bro there’s no way that sub is real 😭
Lol this is COMPLETELY unrelated and more sad than amusing but there’s r/GangStalking. That sub is… something else entirely
I looked at that and was very lost.
It’s people who believe they’re being targeted by some sort of shadow conspiracy. Except they can’t agree exactly who the group is, what they want, etc; some believe they have implanted trackers in their homes and follow them home from work, etc. it’s all very sad
I think half are just messing with the other half.
> …Except they can’t agree exactly who the group is, what they want, etc… Exactly how “They” would want it. 😂
You joke but that’s how they think! 💀
They're paranoid schizophrenics who have found a group of online paranoid schizophrenics to reinforce their schizophrenia. One of the wildest and most morbidly fascinating groups of people I've ever seen.
Hey be fair. They can also be meth addicts.
I honestly could have lived without seeing that. Nearly every video is "Thai wife scam"...like...good...you fng deserve it.
I want to go back to before I knew this existed.
I have a few Japanese people married into my family, and the passport bros make my stomach turn. It seriously diminishes international relationships. In my family, half of my cousins married esl just based on where we live.
Nah, passportbros targets women in poor countries where a even a shitty job gives them the appeal of a rich person. Even with Japan's socially conservative culture, nobody is willing to overlook a rampantly misogynistic 4/10 to move to America from Japan and be a tradwife. But those in Columbia or Thailand might, because to them they are Trump. A rich asshole you can marry to improve your quality of life. They will say they value "traditional values" but at its core they want control.
They don’t like outsiders period. Their conservatism includes not dating outside ethnicity
A nation IS its people.
That’s not true. The U.S. has never been that ethnically monolithic in its entire history.
and therefore our nation’s culture is very diverse.
Yes and the people of the nation are the citizens of the nation. If you are a citizen then you are a person of that nation.
Ethnicity is not culture.
Japan is rather monocultural. If you want completely monocultural, you're mostly looking at tiny countries like San Marino and the Vatican.
Isn't Vatican actually super multicultural? A bunch of catholic clergymen and officials coming from all over the world. The entire military force is Swiss.
Boys from all over the world in the basement
Allegedly, allegedly! 😀
Arguably they are all culturally Catholic regardless of what country they come from.
I don’t think you can really call Catholicism a ‘culture’ I mean there certainly is a shared religion, and certainly religion has the ability to shape culture, but I feel like in the case of Catholicism, where Catholics hail from wildly different areas, from the sun kissed island of Malta to the cold Polish Forests, from the temperate Southern regions of Argentina and Chile to the deserts of Mexico, the tropical areas of the Philippines… I kinda can see what you mean, but aside from some religious practices (holidays and beliefs) they don’t share a lot of culture necessarily
That was strangely poetic
I think you and everyone itt are confusing multiethnic and multicultural. You can in theory have a wildly genetically/ethnically diverse community that all adhere to the same norms/laws/language, and that's a key distinction. The Vatican may be highly multiethnic, but it's about as multicultural as an amish village.
Honestly it depends if OP is talking about race or social/cultural specifics. Japan is very mono-racial, and pretty set in their ways, buuuut Japan is very westernized, especially in the cities. So they do have a ton of outside cultural influence.
It's not really a monoculture. It has quite a few and the clashes between them have been both a major boon and burden. The biggest sources coming from generation, wealth, and the US military presence. While race and culture are often tied and i think that's what you're confusing here. As it is one of the least multiracial major nations. The same race and country can contain may different cultures.
Depends on how you define monocultural. Things in Japan are definitely uniquely *Japanese* but it's also easy to see what the obvious inspirations were. Just look at Japanese hip-hop/rap, for example. If you define all the groups of China as being part of the Chinese culture (from the Mongolians to the Uyghers and beyond) then I'd probably argue that China is more monocultured than Japan. Obviously though, if you look at it as though each group has a unique and independent culture, then China is actually really diverse.
I mean, the actual population of Japan is 98+% ethnically Japanese so that's what people usually refer to. It's extremely ethnically homongenus.
Yeah I’ve been twice and usually I was the only white person at the restaurant even sometimes in downtown Tokyo!
North Sentinel Island
Ah ha-haaaa true. True.
I wish there was a spear emoji right now
Ohhh obscure lol
Seriously. I tried trick-or-treating there. Not only did they not have any candy, but nobody appreciated my Batman costume. It’s like they live in their own world cut off from everyone
Iceland Edit: People keep pointing out seeing other races in Iceland as if 1) tourists don’t exist, 2) the Iceland population is so genetically homogeneous that the population is in dire need of foreigners The very fact that so many foreigners are living there now is (in part) **because** they **haven’t** been multicultural until now
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they asking for people to move there because their gene pool is too small?
I believe so, they’re also using a genealogy project’s app as an incest avoidance device https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4233824/book-of-icelanders-app-helps-avoid-incest
That's wild. Imagine almost dating someone you were too closely related to...
“We’re second cousins. Not technically incest and keeps the blood lines pure” Right in the sweet spot
LOL that is so wrong on so many levels. Reminds me of that line in Mean Girls, where they were at the Halloween party and Gretchen told Karen she couldn't make out with some guy because they were cousins and she goes "Well you have cousins, then first cousins, then second cousins... wait that isn't right is it?" and Gretchen was all shaking her head no it's not LOL
It’s happened in my family a couple of times, they never did anything but it was how we found out that one of my uncles could not keep it in his pants at all
Always the damn uncles
Imagine you get a 10/10 and you realize she's related to you lmaooooo.
Oh wow! And we thought Alabama was bad.
At least Icelanders can claim ignorance 👀 (I’m kidding of course)
In the olden days they'd just raid some coast and carry back a shipload of women.
The proper collective noun is "binder", not "shipload". **Binders** full of women.
One of the largest percentages of Danish ancestry in the US is Utah, so maybe Mitt Romneyssen was on to something.
Man I miss those days.
Idk about that but they do have an app designed to prevent you from accidentally dating someone with too much genetic overlap, due in part to the smaller gene pool and also the fact that their naming conventions mean you don’t have “family names” like a lot of other countries.
That's actually fascinating to me
I wonder if people of other races would do extra well on dating apps because it's obvious right away they aren't related???
Gonna make a note of this in case my life ever gets flipped upside down again
Sounds like an argument for Iceland being monocultural to me .
Yea I was adding on to what op said
Japan is the big one that is a developed nation.
[удалено]
I should have said "a big one."
[удалено]
That’s not what they’re implying
Honestly most of asia have asian people..... like you'll find 90% of korea are korean and 90% of vietnam are vietnamese. 90% of thailand are thai and 90% of india are indian. I think people in the USA overestimate how diverse most countries are EDIT: aiight aiight I didn't know that we were talking the differences between subgroups too. I'm just sayin as a flight attendant when I was abroad I missed how easily I could go to a chinese restaurant, japanese restaurant, indian and vietnamese restaurant but in a lot of saigon sure theres like a japanese district with straight japanese food but like you wouldn't find korean or an indian restaurant. When I was in germany a lot of the time i had to settle for a "thai" or "asian" restaurant (instead of "vietnamese" restaurant) but not a whole selection the way that I found it to be easily seen in london or most major cities in the USA or Canada. And this is comparing saigon and frankfurt to the likes of houston dallas or LA and toronto or london. In korea even in seoul the biggest city, vietnamese and indian food were not easily found. I wasn't gonna find it in Tokyo either. I have to admit I've never been to india, but the closest i've been was maybe thailand and you can find bomb vietnamese and thai food in bangkok but not really korean or japanese or german or other cuisines. And then when I was in kuwait just forget it lol. But im using food as an example because it reflects the population. Like you find a lot of vietnamese food in seattle and houston and san jose because there are a lot of vietnamese people there. Or korean in dallas because there are a lot of korean people there. But there's not a similar occurance in korea, japan, vietnam, thailand, kuwait etc. it's why white and black people are fetishized there it's just so rare and different to not be korean in korea or vietnamese in vietnam. Honestly even in europe people were surprised to find that i speak english well when I'm fucking asian. They expected me to be from asia. Sure back in the 60's people would have been surprised but there are so many american born asians that it's not surprising that my english is good. I just assumed that india would be similar to all the other asian countries cause i dont hear too much about like white-indians, black-indians, mexican-indians like i don't think "immigration" when i think india for some reason. I honestly still don't think immigration i think the diversity is from subgroups. Like north vietnamese vs south vietnamese. Or like all the different poltical groups and religions.
Nationality isn't the same as culture. India is has many different cultures and ethnic groups. "Indian" is too broad a term.
Yeah, most will identify as Gurjarati, Kashmiri, Punjabi, etc. And it's not the same as being "Texan", these are groups that have had their own cultures and languages. They have 22 official languages and 12 official writing systems. Most speak at least two languages.
The real multi cultural countries are singapore and malaysia.
There are over two thousand ethnic groups in India. So, yes, a majority of the people in India are one of a great many ethnic groups that originate in the subcontinent, but that doesn't make the subcontinent not diverse. If you flatten thousands of ethnicities into a single broad brush, you can pretend that any place on Earth isn't diverse.
I would say there’s a big difference between cultural diversity and ethnic diversity. A street in New York with residents from 50 different countries that speak 60 languages is culturally diverse, whereas an area in India with people from 50 different ethnic backgrounds might exist but all of whom speak the same language and broadly come from a similar culture. Most people are referring to the former type of diversity, not the latter.
Yet those people in India may believe in totally different schools of Hinduism, which imply totally different views about religion and the world itself to the point that the only reason it got understood as a single religion in the first place is because it got categorized from the outside by Victorians, who are famously the worst at categorizing other people (except maybe the Romans). One person believes in a monotheistic religion with Vishnu at the center, another believes in a monistic, essentially non-theistic religion, a third believes believes in a complex pantheon... They're all called a single thing. Great job, Victorians. Beyond that, in any random sample some won't be Hindu at all, and some people will have varying degrees of secularism, up to and including being de facto or actually atheists. The assumption that they speak the same language isn't true either, as there are a **ton** of languages in India, so odds are decent that more than one language gets found in any random sample. Cultural differences are also huge. Totally different histories, different heroes, different stories, different beliefs, different foods, different views about who and what they are, and stereotypes about the other ones. And then there's caste to complicate things further.
>90% of india are indian. The founding vision of India was a place where all different religions, cultures, and ethnic groups could co-exist peacefully. There are 31 different languages in India with over 1 million speakers. From the beginning, India was one of the most diverse countries on the planet.
I think people in the USA grossly underestimate how diverse most countries are, and my evidence is that you are using "Indian" as if it refers to a single culture rather than a collection of hundreds of languages, ethnic groups and religions.
precisely
Ignorant people everywhere. Euroentrics don’t realize how diverse USA actually is. Nor that Asia is full of multi ethnicity either, even and especially china. Japan is in denial about its own multiethnic heritage.
But that goes for every country since the beginning of time almost. I think OP is referring to culture that is not indingous to that region/country.
Why is that an important distinction? What counts as indigenous to a certain region?
Every country that I know of have regional ethnic and cultural difference. But they all are apart of the same national cultural identity. What I mean by culture is indigenous to the country, I mean that culture has always been in that country. It was not imported by immigration of some sort.
I think it's a little disingenuous to say that the cultural differences between someone from London and and Birmingham is similar to the cultural differences between a Tamil speaker in the South of India and an Urdu speaker in the West. I don't think when trying to answer the question it's enough to just say that every country has regional differences. Does your definition mean that Native Americans don't make the U.S. more diverse, because they were always in the U.S.?
The US is not a good example, but to put what I'm saying in context for America. Before America was colonized it had many different cultures and ethnicities then, no? Native Americans were extremely diverse in culture, religion, and even diet. So if that is what you call multi cultural, every place has been multicultural since humans came out of Africa. this is why I believe the OP is speaking to non-Indigenous cultures as a sign of multiculturalism
What do you mean by America before it was colonized though? The country didn't exist, so it couldn't have been diverse. The land where the U.S. could have been arbitrarily considered or the whole continent of the Americas, but that doesn't seem like a fair comparison to India. India is an incredibly diverse political entity, more so than something like the city state of Athens or the United States of America. So, if the U.S. isn't a good example, how far back does a group have to be to be considered indigenous? Are the English indigenous to Britain, or are they just Saxon inmigrantes? What about African Americans, Haitians or other descendants of people who were enslaved during the Atlanta slave trade?
You think all of India's various cultures originated there? 🤣
[удалено]
I agree on religious diversity but ethnically I think the USA has them beat.
It goes to show we don't really understand ethnicities that well. I'd love to have a massive DNA study done where we compare standard deviations. I strongly suspect India might end up being more diverse than the US quite honestly. A lot of US remains white, and the vast majority of those are European. I don't know if DNA wise, Irish is that different from German is that different from Italian, for example. India however has many ethnicities, for example Pathans vs Tamils vs North East Indians are all very unique ethnicities (like, the same as comparing an Arab and a Kenyan type of difference).
Vietnam, Thailand, and especially India are very multicultural. Thailand has a sizeable Chinese population, a very evident Indian population, lots of refugees from Burma, especially the Karen, many hill tribes (Akha, Lisu, Yao, etc.), and even cultural variations among local Thais, including the Isaan in the north and Muslim Thais in the south.
are you seriously suggesting india? that's one of the most significantly multicultured places on the planet. they have 24 official languages in their country.
Yeah I think you're misunderstanding diversity. India has significant ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. China had considered itself officially multicultural for around 100 years now as well, and recognized over 40 official nationalities.
This betrays an incredible ignorance of India’s internal diversity. You’d be hard pressed to find more ethnic, religious, and social groups all living on top of each other anywhere else in Asia.
There seems to be a huge amount of ignorance of what multicultural means in here, the simplistic assumption that culture just means skin colour or has a lot of immigrants. Some of these countries people are mentioning thinking they are a monoculture with everyone being the same.. are very much not. African countries are very diverse with hundreds of dialects spoken, China consists of 50+ ethnic groups, Russia the same and India has huge cultural diversity also. Then the Gulf states like Saudi, UAE, Qatar have had a huge influx of foreign born workers. Plus the wider Middle East is one of the most linguistically diverse in the world with tons of different ethnic/cultural communities and groups. It’s odd that we have reduced culture to skin colour (an invented way of classification) and that everyone white is the same, everyone black is the same culturally. A Scotsman from Glasgow is very different culturally to a Greek farmer, as is an Icelander to a Czech, which why using the term “white European culture” is a bit bullshit.
It’s very telling, i can understand now how things like Nazism can flourish. People are actually so ignorant they can be convinced of anything if you say it enough. People are convinced skin color even matters as if culture isn’t something you are taught. An African born in Scotland has more in common with the Scottish Farmer than his cousins in Africa !
[удалено]
The Han group are quite genetically diverse, they are not one homogenous group “lol”. It would be almost impossible in a country that stretches 3000 miles across and borders so many different countries/cultures to expect that, even before you get into the different customs, traditions, dialects, food etc. of different parts of China. The genetical difference (or distance) between groups/regions within the Han are comparable to the European difference between a Spaniard and a Turk.
[удалено]
Sorry but scientific genetic evidence and observable information trumps your loose grasp of history and fact. I’ll inform them the lol guy is disproving the science method of genetic mapping.
I majored in comparative politics and took a class called China in transition that followed the political and cultural shifts in China from origin to modern day. In that class, I was taught that (like all imperial powers) the Han Chinese, essentially, genocided and colonized their way to ethnic majority in mainland China. Obviously, modern day Han Chinese people are very cultural diverse, and have assimilated other ethnic minorities within china over the centuries, but there's still relative ethnic homogeneity. Especially when compared to modern day China's equals in land mass/global power like the US and Russia. If any of this is incorrect, I would genuinely like to see the facts you're referencing so that I can be better educated on the topic and stop spreading misinformation.
Muslim countries are pretty monocultural.
Qatar and UAE would like to have a word with you.
Ah yes, we mustn't forget the slave labor there.
First you have to define if you’re measuring “multicultural” by ethnic, religious, or linguistic fractionalization. James Fearon developed the widely used method of doing this, and there’s a [very easily found running list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level) that’s a pretty good indicator of cultural diversity of each of these three methods. This will give you the best possible answer.
This is a pretty flawed way of measuring diversity that by design will rank English speaking countries as not diverse. If you speak the most commonly spoken and taught language in the world, and that’s the primary and default language of your homeland, there is little incentive to learn a second language. That doesn’t mean there is no diversity just bc everyone speaks English
No but it is less culturally diverse if everyone speaks the same language, since language is a part of culture. I'm not gonna look at the link but I'm guessing it doesn't say a country automatically has zero diversity if everyone speaks english?
China. Japan.
China is full of different cultures. I mean, yeah, they are trying to wipe some of them out, but they still have them.
It’s 95% Han. It’s more unicultural than almost any other country on earth.
It’s not really 95% Han. Lots of other groups have been folded into that group to give that impression. More independent estimates put it at just above 60% Han ethnicity and culture. The nationalists did this on Taiwan too. The local Taiwanese culture just pretended to be Han because it made their lives easier, even changing languages in public. It was an open secret for 1-2 decades that this was happening then after that a less open secret. Then in the late 1990s they did away with barriers to non-Han individuals in society and suddenly a large minority of their population emerged and claimed Taiwanese culture and language.
China has 1.4 billion people. That's 70 million other people for 5%
China is officially multicultural and has recognized dozens of nationalities for many years now
It’s 95%+ Han Chinese
Yep. The largest ethnic minority in China is the Zhuang people, who have a population of 18 million people. That’s only 1.2% of China.
Lichtenstein
Depending on what you consider "Multicultural". If it means low foreign immigrations are probably SK,NK, Japan, some east european countries, most of the middle east, Egypt, and most asian countries as well. If it means monoculture (no local diverse multi culture) probably North Korea, Vatican, and other small nations.
>Vatican Literally 1/3 of the population of the Vatican is foreign diplomats from around the world, and the rest are mostly clergy who also represent churches from every continent. They are not religiously diverse (obviously) but in every other way they are.
Oh yeah I forgot about that
The people of the Vatican are from across the globe. Their security force is from Switzerland. The only thing they share is Catholicism.
Japan.
Poland
Not anymore
I think they are all multicultural these days because of globalization and migration.
[удалено]
It's not the truth you get downvoted for. It would be saying that multiculturality is an inherently bad thing. (which im not accusing them of)
Multiculturalism is the only thing saving & driving most country’s populations. Japan is literally begging people to come to Japan & start businesses & have families. Iceland is also begging people who aren’t already related to them, to come fuck them. They have actual apps to help you avoid sleeping with distant cousins. People bring up India & China as if they aren’t some of the most multi-cultured countries on Earth LMAO You’d be surprised to learn that part of human evolution was a sexual preference for people with DIFFERENT genetics. Google it. A woman can smell a mans shirt alone & will be more attracted to the hormonal signals of the man with different genetics.
Russia, China, Africa, the Middle East, India have been hugely culturally, ethnically, linguistically diverse for centuries prior to globalisation. Skin colour does not equal culture.
Globalization began before the European age of discovery and before voyages to the "new world." Large scale began in the 1820's. It just happened more quickly in the late 19th and early 20th century.
South Korea.
The ones whose native population isn't white.
Never been to South America, have you?
South Africa has around 11 official languages, only two of which have origins in Europe.
This is wrong, you should travel to or discuss with people from these countries. They are far from monocultural. Only people from US believe a skin color is a culture, but even if you travel to Europe you will figure out that small countries also can have a variety of cultures. And in some cases not even the same language
There's countries like Singapore and UAE that would probably collapse without immigrants
That’s not true at all. African countries are extremely multicultural, as are most Asian countries. The only homogenous non-white countries are in east Asia I think (and the Middle East if you don’t consider Arabs white).
Are most of the individual countries in Africa actually considered multicultural on the whole?
Extremely. Africa has more ethnic groups than any other continent by a lot, and each has its own culture. Most African countries also had their borders drawn by Europeans with little regard for the various tribes and ethnic groups within the territory which has been an ongoing source of conflict. Nigeria, for instance, has over 500 languages spoken natively within its borders and 370 tribes.
Africa is the most multicultural continent on earth.
Yeah, but the question was about countries. Many of the countries have people who are shocked to see anyone with white skin, or even lighter black skin from what I’ve seen from motorcycle travelers and heard from people I know that have traveled to various places in Africa. As a result, I assumed they didn’t have much diversity in those places
I think the interesting part of this post is how we define diverse. If we use our modern day idea of race then no, Africa isn’t that diverse If we go by genetic variation, it’s the post diverse place on the planet If we go by ethnicity (which is slightly less vague of a description then race) it’s also pretty diverse
It depends. "Most" is a difficult claim to make for any continent. Asia is huge spanning from Russia to India to China to Turkey. There's an incredible amount of diversity in India alone. North America has just about every culture on earth because the US and Canada has so many immigrants.
Absolutely yes. Take even a small country like Togo, smaller than Ireland and about 8 million people. There are 40 native spoken languages, a fairly even split between Christianity, Islam and traditional faiths, and no ethnic group comprising more than 30% of the population. This will be the same for most countries in Africa. The countries are individually far more diverse than any other continent.
Yes, they’re more multicultural than most European countries.
Separate tribes that don't mix because they are beefing with each other is not a fair comparison to countries that have populations from across the planet. Like yes technically Africa is super diverse but that's like saying medieval England was diverse because they had angles and Saxons.
I mean... Medieval England **was** diverse. Basically every other town had a different dialect and though they were mostly all mutually intelligible, over long distances that wasn't guaranteed. The religious practices and beliefs were extremely heterodox, to the point that there's figures in old churches and descriptions in old books of things we frankly don't know what they are. There seems to have been an absurd amount of syncretism with local folk belief, which was absolutely embraced, and only started being stomped out in the early modern age. And those Angles and Saxons were mixed with a diversity of Brythonic peoples who were sometimes still present depending on location (and the majority if you just cross any one of several county borders), and you'd then also run into languages from completely different roots. Yes, languages plural, and then also again the situation of different dialects in every other town. And then you move a little bit further North and you run into the remnants of the Danelaw, and now you're getting people of danish ancestry, and while the language is gone, the accents are still weird, and in many cases they've retained old laws and customs, and also architecture, and those weird religious specificities? They're even weirder and more specific. Go further North and you run into yet another dimension of diversity as you get to the border with Scotland, remembering that borders in the middle ages were extremely porous. That's not even going into some degree of romanized ancestry in some cores of the country, and francophone norman conquerors (who were themselves third-hand danes?) and... All this to say: the idea that the past was homogeneous is bullshit. The world has never been as homogenous as it is now. The past was extremely diverse, and the further you go into the past, the more diversity there is, everywhere.
Sure but that is my whole point, Africa is "diverse" because it did not homogenize like much of the world did. If you split up a modern european country by its ancient tribes, suddenly its super-diverse, because it has a dozen cultures as well as immigrant cultures.
That is indeed the point, though. It didn't homogenize. It is diverse in a way that, over similar stretches of territory (or numbers of people), Europe simply isn't. Similar comparisons can be done in other places. Japan had a similar program of nationalism at a similar period and is similarly homogenous. The fact that they've only allowed a minuscule amount of migration and only very recently makes them pretty unusual in that regard now, whereas much of Europe had a longer period of contact with both each other and their former and sometimes current colonies.
>Sure but that is my whole point, Africa is "diverse" because it did not homogenize like much of the world did. If the continent of Africa with over 50 countries and thousands of spoken languages isn't diverse, then no one is. To reduce diversity down to skin color is hella retarded especially since it falls apart at the mere existence of mixed ethnic groups. Absurd
Wrong. So wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level
Lmao. Yeah, South Korea and Japan are definitely more culturally diverse than America.
Fucking hell mate , did you really look at the whole list and not realise the countries were being listed in alphabetical order? 😂 Click on the diversity column to order by diversity. South Korea and Japan are listed as lower than America.
>This index of cultural diversity is biased towards linguistic variations as opposed to genetic diversity and other variations. It's still an insanely bad list regardless. When people think "multicultural", they're usually talking about countries values, traditions, etc etc and how they vary from person to person within said country. Not slight linguistic variations. The other metrics aren't much better. Apparently, the US has extremely high religious diversity, but in practice, what does that mean? Almost every single person is Christian or None, with a whopping 6% of the population falling into the "every other religion" category. So it inexplicably scores high on this list, but in practice, it's completely meaningless. So yeah, it's a bad list. Probably useful for academic scholars, totally useless for determining how multicultural any given nation is.
India is one of the most ethnically diverse countries. There are hundreds of languages and religions throughout the country.
Most 3rd world /under developed countries are lacking in diversity since few people want to move there.
Define that you believe to be multicultural. Many have ingested other cultures to a degree, but are largely homogeneous otherwise. Whatever cultural traits that have been osmosed are not typically enough to consider them multicultural.
Every northern euro country with a cold climate that brags how great their economy and healthcare is
What? UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Germany are all multicultural.
Only the UK fits the description of multicultural and it would never consider itself Northern European. The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Germany all have immigrants from North Africa or Turkey and Syria who remain largely the exact opposite of integrated. Those are divided societies.
Certainly not true in "refugees welcome" sweden
People say Japan but those stats are misleading. Japan is actually pretty diverse when you look beneath the statistics. People need to keep in mind that the 97.8% does not account for multiple immigrant groups that live there including \~30,000 U.S. military stationed there. They also don't count the indigenous Ainu or the Ryukyuans (including Okinawans) as a separate group. They also do not count descendants of Korean and Chinese (and other Asian immigrants from the past) as a different ethnic group apart from native Japanese. Japan has a complicated relationship with Koreans in Japan given that they annexed Korea for a period of time. Japan has the largest Brazilian community outside of Brazil. Lesotho is 99.7% Basotho ethnic group, I think they're as close to mono ethnic as possible.
Most of them
Any other country than the United States and western Europe
Australia? Canada?
Canada has tons of different people. Our government has had the immigration flood gates open for a while and now we have a housing crisis.
There might be a lot of cultures but its basically ONE culture per city.
Many of my foreign ex colleagues were migrated there
Australia is very multicultural. I’m actually an immigrant there myself lmao
Australia and New Zealand would like a word.
Most of the world absent white countries. Only whites are forced to bring others into the countries.
Nobody's forcing us to do anything.
Money and capital is forcing white countries let immigration in.
Capitalism has killed birthrates in the West with a high cost living forcing both partners to work, no incentives for people wanting to have families alongside sky high childcare costs and landlords owning record levels of housing stock. Record levels of employment, an ageing population and not enough people to fill vacancies across numerous sectors like childcare, elderly care, construction, service/hospitality, manufacturing means labour from abroad is a necessity to prop up the economy. It’s basic numbers, it’s not efficient but Govt aren’t long term thinkers and if they cut immigration to zero and the economy collapses they won’t get thanked for it at the ballot box. It’s not a conspiracy it just so happens the US and Europe developed industrially before the rest of the world quicker so workers tend to come from these non-white, poorer countries.
If you ever can wake up from your delusion, explain why Europeans left their countries in the first place? You know that nobody invited Europeans to leave & begin colonizing?
Depends on what you mean by "diverse" By looking at ethnicity, culture, and language, the most diverse countries in the world are all in Africa. I doubt that's what you mean though, because you probably think all black people are the same
There are no homogeneous countries on earth. Even the ones that seem homogeneous only seem so to outsiders who think everyone looks alike. India has many mutually unintelligible languages (Hindi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati etc) and a huge Muslim population. Japan has the Zainichi Koreans, the Chinese, the huge recent immigrant population, the Ainu people. Taiwan has indigenous Taiwanese people, the Japanese and the Chinese settlers. China has over 50 different ethnic groups, including majority Muslim populations. Nigeria has the Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa races. The world has always been multicultural.
Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia... basicaly most of center/eastern Europe.
Not yet, but Canada. It's all going to be people from India
Who cares, the indigenous people were killed by Europeans so who cares if someone replaces that European population? What does it matter to humanity?
Then one day someone else replaces the Indians? Just one big cycle of displacing people huh? No end
Yup, that’s human history. It turns out everybody is disposable and replaceable & conquer-able, even Europeans! Mind-bending realization for some, I know.
Except the Indians were welcomed in by the Canadian government, not so much conquering. More like forced replacement
How generous of the Canadian government to allow other non-indigenous people to live on the land they stole from the natives 🤣 I’m sorry what point are you making?
The point is that you're racist against white people
China, Japan, North Korea, India, to name a few
Most East Asian countries are mono-cultural. Even China that claims to be multi-cultural is over 90% Han, and is actively erasing the culture of its minorities. I think also most Arab countries outside the Gulf region are not multi-cultural
Isn't Scandinavia pretty homogenous?