Diversity and Proximity
The more diverse a society is, the more authoritarian interventions are required.
The pursuit of free-market democracy becomes an engine of potentially catastrophic ethnonationalism, pitting a frustrated ‘indigenous’ majority, easily aroused by opportunistic vote-seeking politicians, against a resented wealthy ethnic minority. This confrontation is playing out in country after country, from Indonesia to Sierra Leone, from Zimbabwe to Venezuela, from Russia to the Middle East.
—Amy Chua, A World On Edge, pg. 6
The importance of ethnic conflict, as a force shaping human affairs, as a phenomenon to be understood, as a threat to be controlled, can no longer be denied. By one reckoning, ethnic violence since World War II has claimed more than ten million lives, and in the last two decades ethnic conflict has become especially widespread. Ethnicity is at the center of politics in country after country, a potent source of challenges to the cohesion of states and of international tension. Connections among Biafra, Bangladesh, and Burundi, Beirut, Brussels, and Belfast were at first hesitantly made—isn’t one ‘tribal,’ one ‘linguistic,’ another ‘religious’?—but that is true no longer. Ethnicity has fought and bled and burned its way into public and scholarly consciousness. As the rediscovery of ethnicity has proceeded apace, so has the availability of information about it. What has emerged is a plethora of more or less parochial material on ethnic conflict in scores of countries.
—David Horowitz, Ethnic Groups In Conflict, pg. xi
The most obvious feature of diversity is that it causes problems—problems which the most powerful nations and technology in human history cannot combat. “Racism” has a strange tendency to increase in proportion to the number of races present in a given milieu, regardless of the specific races present, the social arrangements, civil laws, local customs, religion, or historical epoch. For instance, it is not clear how diversity benefitted West Africans in the 1500s, or American Natives around the same time.
Admitting this is difficult for Western peoples to do, being naturally high-trusting, altruistic, and historically insular. The following brief essay is included, therefore, by way of historical illustration of the sociological data findings; namely, that diverse societies tend to experience heightened out-group animosities as different ethnic factions sharpen, stratify, and compete for physical and cultural space.
The idea that groups within ethnically diverse societies will remain indifferent to demographic fluctuations is utopian. In reality, “diverse” states are held together by force, limiting political freedom and in-group cultural expression. In short, “diversity” requires, and gives way to, uniformity or carefully permitted forms of unique expression. Factors such as ethnicity, religion, and language can also clash and compound these issues, furthering the likelihood of conflict. While policies aimed at promoting inter-group dialogue and understanding have heralded a new era of ethnic unity, they have not addressed the underlying sources of tension. Thus, understanding the historical and natural realities of ethnic identity and the disruption of diversity is crucial to develop effective strategies for promoting social cohesion and peaceful existence.
Lebanon
Lebanon is a stark example of how demographic changes can destabilize political and economic prosperity in a given country. Prior to the arrival of Palestinian refugees in the country, Lebanon was one of the wealthiest nations in the Middle East due, in part, to the nation’s emphasis on representative government. However, an influx of refugees in the mid-1900s caused great demographic shifts, with Palestinians suddenly comprising a large proportion of the population. Afterward, tensions between different groups within the country arose, ultimately leading to a devastating civil war that lasted for 15 years.
Today, Lebanon still suffers the consequences of this conflict, with corruption, hyperinflation, and frequent blackouts where once these were unknown. These troubles are further compounded by ongoing political strife, as different groups continue to vie for power and influence within the country. Racial egalitarians will merely conclude that the experience of Lebanon draws attention to the importance of carefully managing demographic shifts and ensuring that all groups within society are adequately represented and empowered. It serves as a failed social experiment, they surmise, on the road to great unity—some day. However, for those with better sense Lebanon highlights the long-lasting negative effects that come with mass fluctuations in demographics.
Tibet
The Chinese government’s policies towards Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong have caused fiery controversy and debate. In the case of Tibet, the Chinese government has tried to bring the region into the “Chinese Whole,” including the forced migration of ethnic Han settlers into traditionally Tibetan areas. This has all but destroyed the region’s original ethnic demographics and culture. Once a largely ethnically homogenous region, Tibetans now see their people, traditions, and life-ways fragmenting among large numbers of Chinese peasant migrants. Tibetans are now powerless “majority-minorities” in their own (former) lands.
The mass migration of Han settlers has also deteriorated the environment and the economy. Traditional Tibetan land use practices and livelihoods are squeezed to the margins by large-scale development projects and commercial enterprises—much like the small farmer, homesteader, and “trad” movements experienced in America. The Chinese government’s policies have been met with natural resistance from Tibetans, who protest (and even engage in self-immolation). In response, the Chinese government has sought to suppress dissent by means of greater tyranny, including forceful coercion and widespread surveillance. It seems diversity and economic progress require the gun.
The situation in Tibet is part of a broader pattern of top-down authoritarianism in China aimed at promoting political “unity” and economic development, often at the expense of actual ethnic and cultural diversity. The communist government’s policies towards Tibet and other regions are also tied to broader geopolitical ambitions, including designs to root out “ethnic separatism” and external influence. These issues are likely to continue to shape China’s approach to eradicate or homogenize ethnic and cultural diversity in the years to come. Globalists in the West imagine that resistance to immigration and the destruction of a simpler way of life are latent features of “White racists.” But the same phenomenon is seen in non-White (and non-Christian) countries.
Indonesia
Indonesia is a land with over 300 distinct ethnic groups, each with its own culture, language, and traditions. Has the dream of the West—“Diversity is our strength”—come true for this multiculturally rich region? In fact, one of the primary social features of Indonesia is discrimination and marginalization of minority ethnic groups. This is particularly true for indigenous groups, such as the Dayak, who have faced displacement and discrimination due to government policies and development projects forcing integration. Discrimination is also prevalent in the job market, where non-Javanese ethnic groups are met with hiring biases and are underrepresented in higher-level positions.
Ethnic and religious conflicts flare up in Indonesia continually, the more so in areas with a high level of diversity. For example, in some regions of Indonesia, such as Ambon and Poso, there have been violent conflicts between Christian and Muslim groups. The government has tried to address these issues, such as through the establishment of interfaith dialogue forums and policies promoting diversity and tolerance. Ultimately, these have been band-aids over a gushing wound.
Additionally, there is a challenge in promoting a common national identity in a multiethnic society, as many ethnic groups fragment into strong cultural identities and prioritize their group identity over a singular national identity. This has led in Indonesia to feelings of exclusion and marginalization, particularly among minority groups, who further spiral outward, away from national unity. Without White people to blame, Western academics and media pundits largely ignore such problems, acting as though religious or ethnic clashes are unique challenges in European countries. Yet, Thomas Sowell’s studies on culture and diversity uncover such issues in this region.
The Balkans
The Balkans, a region in southeastern Europe, has a complicated history of ethnic and cultural diversity that has led to significant political instability and conflict. In fact, the word “balkanize” is now a proverb for the breakup of national unity into ethnic-oriented nation-states. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Balkans were part of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over a wide range of ethnic and religious peoples. As nationalism spread across Europe, many nationalist movements arose in the Balkans region seeking greater autonomy for their respective people groups.
During World War I, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, leading to the emergence of several new states in the Balkans, including Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria, each of which included various ethnic peoples all smashed together under the rule of one dominant tribe of people favored by the more powerful “allied” nations. Hence, these new states remained deeply divided along ethnic and religious lines, which led to ongoing friction and even war.
In the 1990s, the Balkans experienced a series of devastating conflicts that resulted in the breakup of Yugoslavia. Following the death of the Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito in 1980, nationalist and separatist movements promoting the self-determination of a particular people gained momentum, and Yugoslavia began to unravel. In 1991, Slovenia and Croatia also declared independence, followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992.
As Yugoslavia fell apart, a series of hot conflicts developed in which various ethnic groups fought for control of territories and resources. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian Serb forces conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Bosniak Muslims, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and the displacement of millions.
The conflicts in the Balkans ended with the intervention of the international powers, including the UN and NATO. Again, the historical lesson is that diversity and proximity lead to war, which can only be solved by either separation of various groups or suppression of the same by external imperial/international power.
Croatia and Serbia
It is important to make a further note about the Croats and Serbs, two of the largest ethnic groups in the above-discussed Balkans, since they share a common Slavic ancestry and language and yet still have a history of mutual violence and dissociation. It need not be, say, White people and Black people living side-by-side to make for social disharmony. Here are two related groups whose history shows cannot live together long in peace.
Indeed, the roots of the conflict between Croats and Serbs go back centuries. In the Middle Ages, the Croats were under the rule of the Hungarian Kingdom, while the Serbs were part of the Ottoman Empire. But then in the 19th century, both Croatia and Serbia became part of the Austrian Empire. During World War II, Croatia became an independent state under the rule of the Ustasha regime, which collaborated with Nazi Germany against Serbs, Jews, and Romani people. This led to mistrust between the two groups. After World War II, Croatia and Serbia became part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was led by the Communist Party.
In short, two historically disparate nations were thrown together during and after WWII, with one group given power over the other. Thus, many Croats felt at this time that they were being dominated by the more populous Serbs. This led to the rise of Croatian nationalism in the 1980s, which culminated in the declaration of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. Serbia, under the leadership of Slobodan Milošević, opposed Croatian independence and supported ethnic Serbs living in Croatia. Consequently, Croatian forces and Serb forces in Croatia fought each other in what is known as the Croatian War of Independence.
This war lasted until 1995 and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people and the displacement of hundreds of thousands more. In addition to the conflict in Croatia, there was also a war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was fought along ethnic lines between Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks.
Today, the relationship between Croats and Serbs remains strained. While there have been efforts to improve relations, there is still resentment on both sides. Has diversity been their strength? Western leaders seem to move forward with their own plans without addressing raw reality and historical examples such as these. Furthermore, such ethnic strife and war arose between two peoples historically neighboring one another, sharing more things in common than the mass migrations seen today from Africa into Europe or South America in the United States. If decades-long animosities and war can arise from neighbors, what from foreigners?
Ireland
Irish nationalism arose from a long history of English overrule dating back to the 12th century. During the 16th and 17th centuries England imposed a colonial presence in Ireland, controlling the island and its resources and suppressing Irish culture, language, and religion.
Thus, the 19th century saw the emergence of Irish nationalism as a political movement, which aimed to secure autonomy and independence from English rule. This movement was driven by economic grievances, cultural and religious differences, and the desire for ethno-national self-determination.
The 19th century also saw the emergence of cultural nationalism in Ireland, as artists, writers, and intellectuals strove to revive and celebrate Irish language, literature, and traditions. This cultural renaissance played an important role for national identity among the Irish people. Consequently, Irish poetry, song, and writing during and after this period are rich in ethnic consciousness and national themes.
Political nationalism also gained momentum in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as Irish politicians and activists organized around the goal of Irish self-determination. The Irish Republican Brotherhood, founded in 1858, aimed to use force to end English rule in Ireland, while other groups such as the Home Rule Party pursued a pacifist path towards greater Irish autonomy.
Ultimately, the rise of Irish nationalism was connected to the conflict arising from forced ethnic proximity, particularly English colonial rule and the injustices and grievances it inflicted upon the Irish people. The movement for Irish independence led to the Irish War of Independence, which lasted from 1919 to 1921, and ultimately to the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, which later became the Republic of Ireland. Diversity in this centuries-long tale of two nations was no one’s strength. Rather, separation provided freedom, liberty, and social health.
The Boers
The Boer War was fought from 1899 to 1902 between the British Empire and the two independent Boer states, the South African Republic (Transvaal) and the Orange Free State. The conflict arose out of long-standing tensions and disputes between the British, Boers, and indigenous populations over control of land, resources, and political power.
The Boers were descendants of Dutch settlers who had established two independent republics in southern Africa, the above-mentioned South African Republic and the Orange Free State. They were predominantly farmers and sought to maintain their ethnic independence and traditional way of life. However, the discovery of gold and diamonds in the region had led to an influx of British settlers and capital, leading to tensions between the two groups.
The British, seeking to consolidate their power and control over the region, annexed the South African Republic and attempted to annex the Orange Free State. This led to a conflict between the Boers and the British, who had superior military and technological capabilities. The Boers saw themselves as freedom fighters for home, hearth, God, and country. They employed guerrilla tactics and were initially successful, but the British eventually prevailed and established control over the entire region.
The conflict also had a significant impact on the Black populations of southern Africa, who were often caught in the crossfire between the Boers and the British. Additionally, the war had lasting impacts on South African society, contributing to the development of apartheid policies and segregation between different ethnic groups.
Much like how the North treated the South after the U.S. Civil War, the British treated the Boers after this war—by overturning their political order, giving Black people more political power, and “reconstructing” their society. The Boers responded similarly with its apartheid laws as did the U.S. South’s “Black codes” and later “Jim Crow”. There is a pattern, where two groups of Whites come into proximity and then conflict, with the victor imposing still another ethnic group upon the defeated as a means of social control. Diversity, in this case, is a means of suppression and control.
South Africa
South Africa has a high diversity of 10-15 major ethnic groups. Despite being a historically prosperous country, the end of apartheid regime brought a significant decline in the economy and a worsening—not an improving—of the political order. The power vacuum created after apartheid led to the rise of mostly incompetent and corrupt officials who not only failed to address problems but also excused their failures on the grounds of legacy inequalities. Consequently, crime and dysfunctionality have been on the rise in the country, such as the violent murder of White farmers and land seizures. Many farmers have been driven off their land, leading many others to flee the country to seek refuge, particularly those of European descent, further destabilizing the country. Additionally, theft of vital infrastructure, such as railroad tracks, has caused damage to the economy. The country’s obsession with race has led to a deepening of ethnic animosities, further complicating the already existing ethnic diversity. The future of South Africa remains uncertain as the country continues to wrestle with the exact opposite of the supposed “strength” of ethnic diversity.
Iraq
Iraq, as a post-Empire creation, encompasses three major and disparate ethnic groups: Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds. The British colonial government stitched these groups together to create a new country in the aftermath of World War I. The lack of a shared national identity and the inability to reconcile sectarian differences meant that group animosities were almost inevitable. Under Ba’athist rule, with one group ruling over the others, western promises of social harmony collapsed, nepotism grew, power was monopolized, and every man had concern each for his own ethnic and religious group.
For example, during the Iran-Iraq war, the Sunni-led government of Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Shia population in southern Iraq. While Saddam Hussein might have concealed these divisions during his reign, as had been the case with the Ottoman Empire, the fragmentation of centralized power led to the intensification and strengthening of sectarian differences. The subsequent U.S. invasion in 2003 and the toppling of Saddam’s regime further exposed these ethnic divisions, leading to a surge in ethnic violence and instability that still plagues Iraq today.
The U.S. military spent its longest military campaign in American history in Iraq toppling a dictator and making the land safe for a liberal, diverse democracy, only to watch it all collapse literally overnight once its imperial power was withdrawn during Obama’s presidency. Diverse ethnic groups in close proximity breed war, which can only be partially suppressed by a dictator like Saddam, a terrorist organization like the Taliban, or the full might of the strongest military in the world. Once those are withdrawn, nature takes its course once more.
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea has an extremely diverse population, both linguistically and culturally. The country is home to over 840 different languages, making it the most linguistically varied country on the planet. Is this diversity a source of strength, unity, and prosperity? Quite the contrary, the country has experienced low-level tribal warfare since time immemorial and a lack of infrastructure due to rampant corruption in governance.
This has resulted in the failure even to build roads between major cities, which has contributed to a higher crime rate in urban areas. For instance, the capital city of Port Moresby is known for its high rates of crime, including carjacking and robbery. Gangs with ethnic, linguistic, and in-group markers roam about with guns and machetes, defending patches of tribal turf.
Despite its challenges, Papua New Guinea is home to many unique and beautiful cultures, such as the Huli tribe in the Tari Valley, who have maintained their traditional customs for centuries. However, this cultural richness is often overshadowed by multicultural instability and violence. In either case, multiple cultures and peoples living side-by-side have not seen them melting into one pot but standing distinct and growing more so.
Israel
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is a long-standing dispute over territory, land, and religion. It dates back to the late 19th century when Zionism, a Jewish nationalist movement, began to advocate for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This led to an influx of Jewish immigrants and tension with the Arab population in the region, who saw the immigration as a threat to their own claim to the land.
In 1947, the United Nations approved a partition plan that would divide the land into separate Jewish and Arab states, but this was rejected by Arab leaders who believed it was unfair. The following year, Israel declared its independence and war broke out between Israel and its Arab neighbors, including Palestinians. This resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who became refugees in neighboring countries.
The conflict has continued over the decades, with both Israelis and Palestinians claiming the same land as their own. The status of Jerusalem, which both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital, has been a particularly contentious issue. The ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, begun in 1967, has also been a major point of conflict, with Palestinians seeking independence and a state of their own.
Religion has also played a significant role in the conflict, as both Israelis and Palestinians claim a religious connection to the land. Jews view Israel as the biblical homeland of their ancestors, while Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy city and believe that the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven from that city.
The conflict has led to multiple wars and countless acts of violence and terrorism, some would say nigh genocide. Many attempts have been made to negotiate a peace agreement, but so far, a lasting solution has not been reached. If you ask Jews whether diversity would be a strength for Israel, whether open borders, religious pluralism, and welcoming immigrants would improve their nation, you might be called antisemitic.
Brazil
Brazil is one of the world’s most culturally and racially diverse nations, and so it is not without its share of social and economic problems. Notorious corruption, crime, partisan politics, and inequality are some of the significant common themes of the country for years. Unsurprisingly, Brazil’s divisions fall nearly perfectly along racial fault lines on nearly every public, moral, religious, economic, or cultural issue. Internal migrations of ethnic groups has led to racial stratification, exacerbating crime, poverty, drugs, and social collapse in various areas—while other areas excel in prosperity, productivity, technology, art, education, and more.
More biased readers would gleefully point out which ethnicities pertain to which locales. In fact, Brazil has become a proverb for demographic problems, serving as a model for Western nations to avoid or ignore. Seemingly unresolvable, at least by the methods and tools available to liberal democratic regimes, these issues are leading to sub-First World standards of living.
Zimbabwe
The case of Zimbabwe illustrates how moral concerns surrounding racial disharmony, particularly those related to ethnic rights, can lead to the collapse of basic social codes of conduct necessary for running a functional country. Once known as the British-governed flourishing country of Rhodesia, Zimbabwe received aid from Western countries and won independence after a terrible war. However, as some 200,000 Whites left (including White governors and rulers) and “diversity” increased in politics, the country fell into hyperinflation, corruption, and failed land reform. The government’s anti-White racist decision to take land from White farmers and redistribute it to Black citizens fueled ethnic tribalism and led to a collapse in agricultural output. It was only after repeated failures to produce enough food for the nation that Mugabe’s government had to plead with White farmers to return to the lands taken from them.
The government’s policies have had long-term consequences, as the economy has stagnated, and the country has become one of the poorest in the world. Citizens regularly go without fuel, food, and energy, standing in lines for days at times to await air-dropped supplies from functional first-world countries. What was once a beautiful, thriving country is now a dilapidated, impoverished, post-apocalypse level wasteland.
Zanzibar
Zanzibar was home to East Africa’s largest slave trade. It was dominated by Arabs who ruled over Africans in a very clearly delineated racial caste system. Although slavery here was abolished in the 19th century by the British, the racial caste system persisted. Black communist groups emerged in the 1960s, seeking to dismantle the racial hierarchy and establish a socialist government.
In 1964, a revolution took place, leading to the overthrow of the Arab-dominated government and the establishment of an independent Zanzibar. Members of the predominantly African political party, the Afro-Shirazi Party, began attacking Arabs and South Asians living on the island. Thousands of people were massacred along ethnic lines, with some estimates suggesting as many as 20,000 deaths.
The violence continued for several months, and many Arabs and South Asians were forced to flee the island. The new government of Zanzibar, led by the Afro-Shirazi Party, declared the island a socialist state and aligned itself with communist countries like China and the Soviet Union. Here is an example of Africans, Arabs, and Asians—no Whites, no Christians, no Westerners—who engaged in ethnic-racial slavery, caste systems, and bloody revolution. Was diversity their strength?
Liberia
The idea of creating a homeland for freed African-American slaves in Africa was first promoted by White American abolitionists, who saw this plan as a solution to the “Negro problem” in America. The American Colonization Society was formed in 1816 to promote the recolonization of freed slaves back to Africa, and by the mid-19th century, thousands of African Americans had migrated to Liberia on U.S. government largesse. Leading figures such as James Madison and Abraham Lincoln were among the movement’s foremost champions. The assumption was that freedom for all men was good, but social equality was not possible. Furthermore, true freedom entailed political and geographic self-rule, which requires segregation. The notion that English colonists or enslaved Africans wanted freedom from the British Empire or from White slave-owners, respectively, but still wished to live under the rule of their overlords is a contradiction. To be free for both meant freedom from overlords and independence of political rule.
Thus, many African slaves were freed and sent back to Africa to be colonized in a new nation called Liberia. However, rather than finding common cause with native Africans, former African American slaves-now-settlers in Liberia established their own ethnic caste system that placed them above the indigenous population. They segregated themselves from the natives and discriminated against them, much as they had experienced in America—and indeed as was the practice in all of Africa. This created resentment that persisted for a century and contributed to a Liberian civil war and the violent overthrow of the Americo-Liberian ruling class in the 1980s.
The establishment of Liberia as a homeland for freed African-American slaves was supposed to bring ethnic harmony, being modeled after the White man’s U.S. constitution which tied together Swedes, British, Irish, Germans, Frenchmen, and other European ethnicities. However, it did not lead to greater empathy between former African-Americans and native Africans. Instead, it led to the establishment of an ethnic hierarchy that perpetuated group discrimination against the indigenous population and contributed to the violent overthrow of the ruling class. The legacy of ethnic-settler diversity in Liberia continues to shape the country’s politics and society today. Westerners imagine that what happened once here in the U.S. can and should happen all over the world again and again. But time after time we see the same project failing and causing great violent eruptions to the human social fabric.
Myanmar
Burma, also known as Myanmar, is a country that has been marked by conflict and political consequences resulting from anxieties about demographic and cultural displacement. Contrary to popular ideas in the West, “replacement” theories are not unique to White people. This Eastern-Pacific country has a long history as a predominantly Buddhist society, but in recent years, there has been a significant influx of non-ethnic Burmese Rohingya Muslims—diversity and proximity, which have fueled tensions and conflict.
Burmese nationalists claim these Muslim foreigners are being forced upon them, bringing crime, Islamization, and high birth rates that threaten displacement upon the native people. The Rohingya have been subject to brutal violence and discrimination, with many forced to flee the country as refugees. The United Nations and other international organizations have called for Burma to become a more pluralistic power-sharing democracy that respects the rights of all its citizens, including the Rohingya.
However, these calls have been met with resistance from Burmese society, which rightly sees that the influx of Rohingya and other minority groups will lead to cultural displacement and the loss of Burmese identity. In 2021, the Burmese military led a coup against the liberal-democratic government destroying its country, seized control of it, and proclaimed “Myanmar’s Sovereignty.”
In short, Burma’s long history of colonization and foreign influence has created a deep-seated sense of national identity and the desire for autonomy. Past diversity gave the nation a strengthened sense of national consciousness which fuels its resistance to liberal-democracy’s enforced diversity agendas.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic country with a long record of ethnic strife and faction. The two major ethnic groups in Sri Lanka are the Sinhalese, who make up the majority of the population, and the Tamils, who are concentrated in the northern and eastern parts of the country.
Historically, the relationship between these two groups has been marked by strain and occasional violence. The Tamils feel marginalized and discriminated against by the Sinhalese-dominated government. The modern origins of this conflict are usually traced back to British colonialism, which created an artificial system of governance that conflated historically disparate ethnic groups under one political border and power, favoring the Sinhalese majority and excluding Tamils from positions of power. Ethnic groups unable to rule themselves, and being ruled by other ethnic groups, always leads to faction, dissension, and violence. When let free, ethnic groups naturally segregate to rule and govern themselves.
Thus, the post-independence period saw the emergence of Tamil nationalist movements, which sought greater autonomy and self-determination for the Tamil regions. This led to a violent conflict between the Sri Lankan government and Tamil separatist groups, most notably the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which waged a brutal insurgency for over two decades. The conflict ended in 2009 with the defeat of the LTTE, but friction between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities has not abated.
In addition to the Sinhalese and Tamil communities, Sri Lanka is also home to a number of other ethnic groups, including Muslims, Burghers, and Malays. These groups have faced discrimination and marginalization, particularly in the context of the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict. Muslims, in particular, have been targeted by “extremist” Buddhist groups in recent years. Those natural ethnic in-group forces, which a strong governing colonial power could keep sequestered, have under less total authority erupted in strife and aggression. Diversity is not a strength. Rather, it requires strength to be regulated.
Kashmir
Kashmir is a region in South Asia that has been a source of conflict between India and Pakistan for decades. The region is home to many ethnic and religious groups, including Kashmiri Muslims, Kashmiri Hindus, and various other minority communities. The historical and political problems of diverse ethnic groups in Kashmir are convoluted and have contributed to ongoing troubles in the region.
Historically, Kashmir has been a site of contestation between different empires and ruling dynasties. The land has been ruled by various Hindu and Muslim kingdoms throughout its history and was incorporated into British India in the 19th century. At the time of partition in 1947, Kashmir was a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, and the decision of the Maharaja to accede to India rather than Pakistan has caused conflict ever since. In short, unlike above examples where one group ruled unequally over another, Kashmir was a diverse society which the British tried to setup such that everyone had equal representation. But what ends up happening in such scenarios is that one group feels that the imperialists have put a puppet ethnic-diversity hire over them. And they grow to hate it.
The conflict between Indians and Pakistanis over Kashmir has led to a range of human rights abuses, particularly against the ethno-religious Kashmiri Muslim population. The Indian government has deployed tens of thousands of troops to the region to dispel separatist movements and maintain control, leading to extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances. The situation has been exacerbated by the rise of militant nationalist groups that seek to establish an independent Kashmir, some of which have engaged in acts labeled by the government as “terrorism.”
The political problems of diverse ethnic groups in Kashmir are also related to issues of representation and self-determination. The Kashmiri Muslim population has long sought greater independence, arguing that they have been marginalized and oppressed by Indian rule. However, the Indian government has resisted these demands, claiming that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that separatist movements pose a threat to national security. Once again, diversity and proximity within one political or geographic region has disproved the liberal-democratic dream of multicultural harmony.
Fiji
Fiji is a Pacific Island country with an artificially diverse ethnic population that includes indigenous Fijians, Indo-Fijians, and other minority groups. The historical and political problems of diverse ethnic groups in Fiji have contributed to a centuries-long strife between these different communities, with no amount of western-liberal solutions affecting change. Historically, Fiji was colonized by the British in the late 19th century, and the colonial government introduced indentured labor that brought Indian foreigners by the masses into the country. The indigenous Fijians view these Indo-Fijians as aliens and a threat to their cultural and political dominance. Thus, Fiji is another example of international powers forcing diversity upon a local people via mass migration; with local population gaining ethnic consciousness and reacting to protect itself and its historical rootedness.
Furthermore, the political problems of diverse ethnic groups in Fiji have grown since the country gained independence in 1970. Indigenous Fijians have dominated politics and held great amounts of power, which they used to discriminate against Indo-Fijians and other minorities. This has included policies such as affirmative action for indigenous Fijians (the opposite of what the majority ethnic group in America did), restrictions on land ownership and political representation for Indo-Fijians, and discriminatory practices in employment and education.
The divisions between different ethnic groups in Fiji have led to political upheaval and coups.
In 1987, a coup spearheaded by indigenous Fijians deposed the government, leading to the establishment of an interim government that was dominated by the indigenous Fijians. In 2000, there was another coup, again led by a group of indigenous Fijian nationalists who opposed the government’s tolerant policies towards Indo-Fijians.
In recent years, there have been efforts to address the historical and political problems of diverse ethnic groups in Fiji, including the adoption of a new, globalist-inspired constitution in 2013 that aimed to promote greater equality and inclusion. However, historical and natural realities persist where diversity is found, and asymmetrical power relations remain between the various groups who hold fast to their various identities.
Sudan
Sudan has over 500 ethnic groups, with the largest being the Arab, Nubian, and Beja. By the western utopian logic of “Diversity Is Our Strength”, Sudan is a country that should be brimming full with strong political and cultural vibrancy. However, these diverse ethnic groups in Sudan have wrought such horrific violence and devastation upon one another as to avert western attention altogether.
Sudan, like Fiji above, was also colonized by the British in the late 1800s. The colonial government exacerbated ethnic tribalism by forcing diverse groups—historically segregated—together under one imperial rule, favoring some groups over others. Forcing naturally divided groups together and then giving one group power, privileges, and/or rights over the others is always a disaster. Thus, after independence in 1956, various ethnic groups struggled for political power and economic resources. This story by now should be a familiar pattern.
After the strong ruling power is removed, groups re-stratify and begin warring once more. And so, the tribally partisan government of Sudan has been accused of neglecting some regions of the country where out-group peoples dwell, leading to economic disparities and a sense of marginalization among some ethnic groups. The equivalent in America would be the U.S. government and mainstream media outlets caring and acting on behalf of Black Americans or immigrants but neglecting the social maladies and crimes against White Americans. In Sudan, such tribal-political partisanship has contributed to a range of conflicts, including ethnic and religious violence, as well as militancy and insurgency in some parts of the country.
One of the most significant political issues in Sudan has been the struggle for power and resources between the dominant Arab ethnic group and smaller minority groups. The Darfur region, for example, is home to a number of minority peoples who have been marginalized by the government and the dominant Arab groups. This has led to the rise of insurgent factions such as the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), both of which have used violence to demand greater political autonomy and control over resources.
Recently, the government of Sudan introduced policies to promote national unity and inclusivity, such as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the civil war between the North and South of the country. There have also been calls for constitutional reforms that would decentralize power and give greater autonomy to the regions. While it is not clear that decentralized power heals ethnic animosities, racial or ethnic identity and self-determination are certainly what fuel resistance to enforced group subjugation by an out-group.
Rwanda
Rwanda has an explosively hostile history between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic peoples, which has contributed to one of the worst genocides in modern history, as well as continued warring conflicts.
Historically, the Hutu and Tutsi peoples have lived in Rwanda for centuries, with fluid yet strongly delineated social and economic relations. However, during colonial rule in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Belgian colonizers introduced a strict ethnic classification system, exacerbating tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi. The Tutsi were favored by the colonizers, leading to resentment and marginalization of the Hutu.
After independence in 1962, political power in Rwanda was largely controlled by a brutal Tutsi minority (majorities are not what always dominate in politics), leading to further resentment among the Hutu majority. This culminated in the 1994 genocide, in which an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by militant Hutus. The genocide was a result of a longstanding culture of ethnic hatred and violence, stoked by political propaganda and agitating speeches. In the aftermath of the genocide, Rwanda has made efforts to promote national unity and reconciliation—not unlike that between the North and the South after the U.S. nation slaughtered some 600,000+ of its own people. However, there are still ongoing divisions in Rwanda, particularly around issues of power-sharing and representation. The current government, led by President Paul Kagame, is dominated once again by the Tutsi ethnic group, with claims still heard of prejudice against the Hutu.
But The West Is Different!
White people, according to liberal westerners, are the exception to this record of human experience. Racial egalitarians point beyond empirical history to a few utopian experiments which pose continual contradictions to the idea. According to this theory, all peoples and nations may have failed, but we in America, we in the West will achieve what they did not. In 2020, the former president Barack Obama affirmed this vision when he said, “…America is the first real experiment in building a large, multiethnic, multicultural democracy. And we don’t know yet if that can hold. There haven’t been enough of them around for long enough to say for certain that it’s going to work.” (Why Obama Fears Our Democracy, The Atlantic, Nov 15, 2020) Likewise, in a speech given at the Mackinac Policy Conference on 30 May 2024, Democrat politician Pete Buttigieg said, “The world has never actually seen a large-scale, fully-functioning, fully-inclusive, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, democratic republic that represented everybody. We’ve never actually had that all the way, but we could.” It’s never happened, but it could! Hopes and dreams!
Yet, has America’s diversity experiment of the past 400 years been wonderful for Black people? Native tribal-peoples? Obama and Buttigieg seem to think that after four centuries the jury is still out on the question. How much longer will we be made to wait to draw conclusions? The Israelites, too, were in Egypt for 400 years and yet never became Egyptian but chose rather to segregate by fleeing when the opportunity arose. Is it so strange that this utterly human dynamic happens again in our day and time?
Readers who balk at these historical arguments should consider the location they have chosen to live and work, their friendships and networks, the locales they frequent, the marriages they have contracted, or the places where they spend quantities of money to buy their children a seat. People love diversity, in opinion polls and from afar. The wife of the 2024 vice presidential candidate, Tim Walz, said that during the BLM protests that she opened her window to smell the burning fumes in order to feel connected to the event. Yes, she opened her window, but she didn’t go out to join the vibrantly diverse “mostly peaceful protests.”
Other examples of supposed harmonious diversity bandied about include Switzerland, Canada, France, the UK, or Germany. In reality, however, diversity has been a great disaster even in these countries so far and is only in its beginning stages of eating away the centuries—often millennia—of social capital and good-will so long built up. It is a testament to the altruism and high trust character of western peoples that their institutional stability has held up under the influx of tens of millions of non-westerners over the last decades of liberal-democratic politics. Daily we hear fresh hells of the effects of diversity amidst once idyllic European towns or famous places. Entire cities become swallowed up by foreigners, aflame with diversity, and then abandoned by retreating western natives. And the newcomers boldly declare victory at the takeover while the media ignores it all! It is Camp Of The Saints in real life.
A nonwestern example of diversity seemingly working is Singapore. But this tiny island-country is heavily authoritarian, which, in the eyes of freedom-loving westerners, would compare with more totalitarian regimes. Yet, such strong-willed, top-down control is what it takes to enforce harmony amid naturally stratifying elements. It is possible to keep oil and water blended if you keep shaking them—destabilizing their norms. This was indeed the policy of Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who, in a Der Spiegel interview, said, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” Yew elsewhere noted that diversity is not a strength; rather, ethnic unity produces greater social results: “I have said openly that if we were 100 percent Chinese, we would do better. But we are not and never will be, so we live with what we have.” Ever the realist, and shorn of White guilt or global do-goodism toward the world’s less fortunate, former Prime Minister Yew was able to articulate a policy for Singapore that ran and still runs roughshod over liberal democracy and yet which achieves that harmony amid diversity so coveted by liberal-democratic proponents.
Overall, while it is possible to have different types of diversity, in general, the more diverse a society is in terms of factors such as ethnicity, religion, intelligence, historical attachments, etc., the more authoritarian interventions are required to maintain a high level of functionality. Diversity and harmonious liberty are, by historical record, incompatible. The following studies prove this historical experience true.
This essay is from:
Who Is My Neighbor? Encyclopedia of Natural Relations
Extensive index of universally acknowledged norms among all human societies, now largely forgotten in the West.
ATTENTION READER: We need your help.
Institutional trust is at record lows. But without institutions, we cannot renew our people, much less provide an inheritance to posterity. In response to this crisis and as an organic outgrowth both of necessity and natural interest, American Mantle exists. And so we make our appeal.
Donate to the Cause. Help us reach our monthly goal in order to solidify this crucial institution.
