>> Countries exist that have dozens of languages and tribes. They usually have endless social problems, unrest, civil wars and often break up.

> Oh yeah, the history of the Swiss in the context of Europe is just non-stop insanity and violence. If only they could aspire to be more monocultural and peaceful, like their neighbors, the Germans...

The Swiss, and their cantons, have almost un-heard-of amount political power and freedom. There is direct democracy where state matters are directly voted by the people. Also the Swiss cantons are sovereign don't have to follow federal law!

There is no need to rebel, if you can do whatever you want.

In some sense, the Swiss works more like a collection of tribes than a country.

Switzerland is really the only example I can think of that's an exception to the OP's claim. Do you have any others at all?

The problem with OP’s claim is that it lacks any philosophical or historical rigor. Nation states, in their framing, people relating to themselves in terms of national identity, is a modern construction. And even within this context, you have widely different forms and articulations.

What is clear from the history of the 20th century is that appeals to nationalism and uniformity of culture, broadly constructed, drive more violence and conflict than they prevent. Organizing around their ideology led to two world wars, bloodshed and destruction at a previously unforeseen scale.

Arguably, the postwar peace was only restored by a return to an older form of sovereignty: that as semi-autonomous subjects of a multicultural empire (in this case that of the US and USSR). These have long standing historical precedents for their durability (e.g. the Roman and Ottoman empires).

If the only way we have peace is through brutal dictatorships or superpowers' hegemony, does it really invalidate what I'm saying?

Also, all those powers also attempted to spread their culture, language and religion. Hence Latin based languages, Arabic being spread as far as it has, Russian being spoke all over the former USSR, English being the new lingua franca.

Yes. Your argument that was “monocultural” societies are somehow more peaceful, and now more so than imperial rule, when the history of the 20th century demonstrates the opposite. Nationalism led to massive internal violence and attempts at creating new empires that ultimately led to subjugation of these states between two outside empires.

We're not exactly a post-national society or world yet.

So basically you're arguing in favor of imperialism? Imperialism replaces internal violence with violence (or the threat of it) from an outside oppressor. How is this a good solution?

No, I’m stridently anti-imperialist, but simply observing the historical reality that, counter to OP’s claims, “monocultural” nationalism is a modern, unstable construction, that tends toward violence.

>but simply observing the historical reality that, counter to OP’s claims, “monocultural” nationalism is a modern, unstable construction, that tends toward violence.

You state this as if it's a fact, but it simply isn't. There's lots of monocultural nations that don't have any violence problems whatsoever: Scandinavian nations come to mind immediately.

Moreover, the "golden" days of the Cold War were pretty awful for a lot of people. The US and USSR didn't go to war directly, but instead conducted a bunch of proxy wars: Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc. The 20th century after WWII was full of violence, it was just kept away from the two imperial powers mostly. Instead they instigated violence in other places to pursue their "interests", such as when the USA overthrew the democratically-elected government in Iran and installed a brutal dictator.

As for stability, I would argue that stability is something we've never had anywhere, not long-term. I don't think you can point to anything that's been continuously stable for a long time, so I would argue that instability is the norm. Trying to keep a society stable is like trying to balance on a beach ball: you can do it for a little while, but eventually you're going to fall.

The problem is that any country, if you wait long enough, has endless social problems, unrest, civil wars, and then they break up. So it's hard to find an exception.

Singapore has 4 languages and associated faiths and works pretty well.

Singapore had to import Nepalese Gurkhas to keep the peace, both because they're extremely militarily effective and also because they were seen as impartial by the different ethnic groups.

External wars != internal strife. Also, Switzerland is still fairly homogeneous despite having several official languages. Moreso than say, China, India, even France or Spain.

Wait, doesn't that blow up this whole line of reasoning?

If language isn't the thing that matters for national harmony, then this is at best a red herring and at worst a fig leaf.

Language is one thing. Culture overall matters. There are a bunch of things which lead to homogeneity. Religion for example. Look at all the troubles Ireland has faced.

Culture is language + religion + food + social norms + ideology and probably other things. Not everything needs to be the same, but if too many are in conflict, social problems arise.

Ok. So, are you angry when someone with a different religion moves into you town? Or different food? Or different ideology?

I feel like the more this is being explained to me the more unsavory it seems.

Me personally? No.

But evidence of this is all around the world. Hindu mobs attacks butchers who sell beef in India, there's tons of contention over the rise of halal butcher shops and Muslim demands for halal options in the west, or even vegans that protest butcher shops for a non-religious example.

For religion itself, tons of wars have been started over it, that's easy.

As for ideology, look at the US and how fractured it is because of politics today. Or the historic communist revolutions. Or political violence in South and Central America. Both left-wing and right-wing violence against the other side are a thing.

People shouldn't care about these things, but they do, it's a thing.

So, you do have a problem with people speaking other languages, but don't have a problem with people having different religions, despite both causing the same issue you're worried about?

Not getting it. Starting to lean towards the "fig leaf" theory.

I don't have a problem with much really, certainly not language. I've lived all over and can live anywhere. I speak multiple languages and come from an ethnic, religious and linguistic minority (albeit not a visible one).

But it's pretty obvious that tribalism isn't dead. And what makes a tribe? And of course, we're trying to kill tribalism by simply making a more inclusive, bigger tribe. So what are the commonalities we'll have as part of that bigger tribe?

When borders don't exist anymore, racial discrimination doesn't exist, religion is dead, it won't be because we simply killed them. It'll be because we created a new ideology to supercede it.

I think you're arguing something that isn't germane to my question.

The OP on this thread said they would be irritated by (and I'm paraphrasing) someone coming in who spoke a different language. I am aware that such a thing exists, but wanted an answer to why. What you're addressing is the unasked first question, does such hostility exist?

I got confused because it appeared earlier in the thread that you were trying to justify that viewpoint on its own consequence. But now it seems like you were just steelmanning, which honestly isn't that useful to me on questions that are basically "how does your worldview work?".

I don’t know really how to respond besides to say you’re shifting goal posts to fit your narrative.

No historian worth their salt would be foolish enough to compare the circumstances of individual European countries with that of their former colonial subjects, nor things like the shifting borders and variations of thousands of years of Chinese history. Strife in China and India isn’t even independent from the influence of “homogenous“ countries in Europe!