Or are people still only changing cultures when they have no reason to?
- 7
- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
.png){kind=avatar}
Nothing changed. I loved that one of the rewards for completing Natural Borders of France is assimilation bonus, considering that you couldn't assimilate conquered territories because it's their homeland. And the other reward is getting Francophone cultures as your Primaries which also gives nothing because you didn't discriminate them
Last edited:
- 19
- 16
- 1
- 1
- 1
Assimilation has always made sense. If you're actively being discriminated against why would the people discriminating against you allow you to become one of them?
- 26
- 8
- 1
In other words, assimilation isn't actually useful (unless you intend to go Ethnostate after Multiculturalism or something like that, in which case those Chinese who have become Yankees will still be Yankees).
Makes sense that it's something of a useless mechanic, but still.
Makes sense that it's something of a useless mechanic, but still.
- 3
- 2
In answer to your question:
- Part of the point of assimilation for many people is to make it impossible for others to tell they are *not* "one of them". That is possible as long as:
- discrimination is not based on visible characteristics outside of the persons control (e.g. skin colour); and
- their past status is basically unknown (say, they recently moved there, and the government doesn't make them wear yellow stars).
- Not all discrimination is nativistic tribalism. Sometimes conforming to cultural practices is sufficient for people to accept you, because you've effectively "come around to the right way of doing things". Again this requires that the discrimination not be based on something like skin colour (i.e. heritage).
- Intuitively, why would people *only* assimilate when there is no pressure for them to do so?
- Mechanically, and so more importantly, why does assimilation only take place when it is inconsequential?
Last edited:
- 33
- 3
- 2
it makes no sense because it gives you nothing. People that you already don't discriminate against are basically the same as your primary culture
- 26
- 1
Perhaps more problematically, this bears the implication that "assimilation" is a progressive goal. It was a bit more complicated than that:
France for much of this period, for example, was considered quite liberal in that a person could become a naturalised citizen without strict consideration of their ethnic background (in-game more or less the Cultural Exclusion and Freedom of Conscience laws). This was useful for France with its at the time heterogeneous population, as only citizens were subject to conscription. Then more direct assimilation came into play with the Jules Ferry laws and universal public education, but that had nothing to do with the passage of more multicultural, anti-discriminatory legislation.
In a contrasting example, Russian policies of the time attempted to directly assimilate various peoples into explicitly speaking Russian, and discriminated against those that did not. Without strong state institutions and infrastructure this assimilation was a mostly impotent policy, though intentional settlement of Russian speakers and expulsion of locals did shift the demographic balance of some areas. In essence, local groups were discriminated against and given a choice: they could remain an out-group and not gain the benefits and privileges of the state, or they could adopt the customs of the ruling majority, i.e. assimilate. Linguistic/cultural assimilation was itself a prerequisite for civic participation. This is in contrast to retention of local customs and a separate identity alongside the benefits of citizenship.
In either case, successful "assimilation" was either the result of aggressive discriminatory practises and colonisation, or compulsory primary education.
France for much of this period, for example, was considered quite liberal in that a person could become a naturalised citizen without strict consideration of their ethnic background (in-game more or less the Cultural Exclusion and Freedom of Conscience laws). This was useful for France with its at the time heterogeneous population, as only citizens were subject to conscription. Then more direct assimilation came into play with the Jules Ferry laws and universal public education, but that had nothing to do with the passage of more multicultural, anti-discriminatory legislation.
In a contrasting example, Russian policies of the time attempted to directly assimilate various peoples into explicitly speaking Russian, and discriminated against those that did not. Without strong state institutions and infrastructure this assimilation was a mostly impotent policy, though intentional settlement of Russian speakers and expulsion of locals did shift the demographic balance of some areas. In essence, local groups were discriminated against and given a choice: they could remain an out-group and not gain the benefits and privileges of the state, or they could adopt the customs of the ruling majority, i.e. assimilate. Linguistic/cultural assimilation was itself a prerequisite for civic participation. This is in contrast to retention of local customs and a separate identity alongside the benefits of citizenship.
In either case, successful "assimilation" was either the result of aggressive discriminatory practises and colonisation, or compulsory primary education.
- 23
- 2
- 1
- 1
In reality the assimilation of adults is fairly rare. Assimilation tends to happen over generations, when children become more like the locals than their parents.
Last edited:
- 13
- 2
Vic3 uses an "Irish in America" model for assimilation, not a "Roman citizenship" one.
- 12
- 1
- 1
Never underestimate the willingness of Paradox fans to come up with defences for even literally pointless features.
- 30
- 2
- 1
- 1
Perhaps, then, there should be another law regarding assimilation of discriminated minorities? I hesitate to suggest a law that amounts to Residential Schools, but that seems like what it amounts to (assimilating newborn members of a discriminated culture through the school system).
- 1
Not to mention that event about discrimination (School system I think?) Where the discriminatory choice gives you an increased assimilation rate, but with the game mechanics being designed with the exact opposite philosophy, that option makes the least sense in an ethnostate and the most sense in a multicultural society lol
- 9
- 6
- 1
I find myself in vehement agreement with this, wishing I had more likes to give.
The French didn't pass oppressive laws aimed at Breton and Occitan speakers because they thought it would be super funny to watch people suffer, they passed those laws so that the Bretons and Occitans would be forced to adopt French. It was a deliberate policy with a well-defined aim, and it was largely successful in achieving that aim. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that if France had been more tolerant of Bretons and Occitans between 1836-1936, fewer people would be speaking those languages today.
Racial discrimination - needless to say - operates nothing like this. There is no way to model assimilation and discrimination accurately, without an appreciation that discrimination on the basis of race and nationality are different things, with different motives, that led to different outcomes.
Vicky's conflation of race and nationality is the underlying problem here, from which the half-baked discrimination and assimilation mechanics stem.
Last edited:
- 35
- 8
- 2
- 2
- 1
It that was how it worked, why did white Europeans face discrimination when they immigrated to the U.S.A? Shouldn't they have just instantly assimilated and avoided all the hate?
edit: Plenty of German Jews thought they had achieved that impossibility and still ended up having to wear the yellow stars you mention.
Because it's not really a choice, if an accepted immigrant sends their kid to school. Spending 8 hrs a day with a teacher and classmates of the primary culture will see to it that the kid internalizes at least some if not all the norms of the majority culture.
It takes place because certain ig's have culture requirements and without the assimilation they would become permanently marginalized.
Last edited:
- 7
- 2
- 2
To be honest, I think you misunderstand how precisely perceptive urban 19th century Europeans and Americans were when it came to the typical facial features of different ethnic groups. This was an era when physiognomy had huge popular support, remember. "Whiteness" was only one racial categorisation of the time. Not to mention accents, language, and so on.
- 11
- 1
But it was progressive. Mind you, so were eugenics and prohibition of alchohol.
- 5
- 2
Because they want you to become one of them? "If only you abandoned your backwards inferior culture and adopted our superior culture we wouldn't have to employ state violence against you. Why are you hitting yourself?" was a common attitude in Europe at the time. The French even tried to do it in Africa.
This entire system seems to be made to model the american assimilation of european immigrants and nothing else.
As a sidenote even Cultural Exclusion is far too inclusive for Inteligentsia in this period.
Last edited:
- 15
- 2
According to the wiki non primary pops are forbidden from supporting the pb interest group.
- 5
- 1
Indeed, French historical policies in regards to cultural assimilation highlights the limits of the current game system. The current 'conservative & discriminatory' Vs 'progressive & multicultural' paradigm is far from being representative of the era.
Assimilation involves reducing cultural differences while multiculturalism is all about recognizing and valorizing these differences.
The French left would typically oppose multiculturalism upon the principle of Republican Universalism. Republicans advocated for an indivisible republic that would not recognise composite identities: people were expected to become fully fledged French citizen... It eventually lead to the French language being favoured over local dialects, Francization of names, etc.
- 12
- 4
- 1
- 1
That makes all the difference...
Wait no it doesn't, PB are irrelevant for 95% of the rime until you do Emperor Norton achievement