that Germany and Japan still maintain their ethnic purity, right or wrong. Wrong, as far as Germany is concerned. Also, I dislike your misuse of the word 'pure' in your reasoning. A neutral expression would be 'monoethnic'. And I would request you to use this neutral expression if you don't really want to associate the notion of 'purity' with mono-ethnicity.
Most important: Germany never was monoethnic in the first place. It is a myth of the 19th century. It has nearly totally been replaced by other myths, and looms only in some dark places of the public mind.
I doubt the multi-culturality of Yugoslavia and the Soviet union so much that I would request of you again, like I did in April and June, not to use the word so incorrectly for those states. I would rather say they were monocultural with a totalitarian strain for enforcing this mono-culture, and a propaganda that pretended this culture to be the workers culture. A German example: I never understood why Rostock wharf workers should use the same pretended Saxon dialect ('State Saxon', a creation of the socialist unity party SED) like Leipzig steel-workers. However they did as long as the GDR existed, and they would not enter the media if they didn't.
All of a sudden there was Mecklenburgish again in 1990 ... strange to call such countries mono-ethnic.
Do you also claim multi-culturality for Ciaocescu's Romania, which was full of ethnic repression, sometimes enforced brutally? And do you also claim that Ciacescu's regime declined for their being a government with a sensitive handling of their 'multi-cutural society'?
I think the opposite is nearer to the truth, and you should accept that - or you will live on in the errors of the past.
MNI. |
