What are the historical reasons why Western Europe has generally promoted immigration and multiculturalism, while Eastern Europe has tended to adopt more restrictive immigration policies?

>>17894124 (OP)
The difference is no one wants to emigrate to Eastern Europe Ivan lmao

>>17894124 (OP)
>post a brazilian mutt with portuguese blood
Also he look like a femboy, how is this an own ?

>>17894124 (OP)
>What are the historical reasons why Western Europe has generally promoted immigration and multiculturalism,

There are no "historical reasons" why it has or would do so because this is the first time in history that it has ever allowed such a thing to happen.

>>17894124 (OP)
Soviet Union encouraged ethnostates while the Western powers did not. They drew the borders and moved people around so that the diversity of pre-WWII Eastern Europe was basically erased. IMO a tragedy but if you like homogeneity you will approve of it.

>>17894147
soviet union was a literal mongrelstan

>>17894184
Yeah sure but in Eastern Europe they basically did set up little communist ethnostates which was awkward for a lot of people with different ideologies, since communists aren't "supposed" to be about that, and then they did stuff that Polish right-wingers weren't able to pull off. They also prevented Jews from leaving the USSR while draining DP camps in Eastern Europe of Jews to Palestine. Poland was once 30% Jewish or something.

I think the fact is that a bunch of new states formed out of the collapsing empires in World War I, and most of those states failed. And a big part of the story of central/eastern Europe following WWI was a bloody shaking out process as borders were redrawn and ethnic minorities annihilated. The Middle East has also been experiencing this process in the ruined former territories of the Ottoman Empire. You see it in Israel/Palestine but also Syria and Iraq. It's about religion, but religion there has come to function like ethnicity does.

The left talks about colonialism and so on, but a lot of it to me looks like the Balkan Wars except with Israeli turbofolk:
https://youtu.be/5eJqw0t3e9c

Turkey also annihilated its Christians and Armenians. There used to be a bunch of Greek Christians who lived there. Also look at Cyprus. It was divided in half and the Turks went to the northern part and the Greeks went to the southern part.

It's difficult to get a state that is responsive to "citizens" who feel loyalty to it when the people who live there don't want to live with each other. I'm not saying this is my preference, but without an authoritarian state with some Bonapartist leader like Saddam Hussein, a lot of these countries have tended to devolve into ethnic conflicts where the minorities get wiped out. That was also like Assad who had support among Syria's minorities, not because they particularly loved him but because they feared the alternative (Sunni supremacist rule):
https://youtu.be/gRUJK8wv6-M

>JL: Well, the trouble is that what we saw with the great sorting-out in Europe is that all these new states that were created out of multi-ethnic, multi-religious empires after World War I – the class of 1919, as I call them – that includes over nine nation-states in central Europe that were created whole-cloth or reconstituted in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, where different peoples were asked to form an organic community and become a nation. These multi-ethnic empires that were destroyed in World War I, the empire-destroying war – Russian Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and for our purposes, the Ottoman Empire – were turned into nation-states; and they failed spectacularly. And it’s led to the process of this great sorting-out, where Poland, for example, was 64 per cent Poles before World War II; by the end of World War II, by 1950, it was 100 per cent Polish. That meant the destruction of 3 million Jews, the ethnic cleansing of 5 million Germans, mostly at the end of the war, and Ruthenians – that’s Ukrainians and Lithuanians – were also driven out. In Czechoslovakia we see the same thing, where the Sudeten German, 3 million, were destroyed, as well as all the Jews; and then the Czechs and Slovaks, two of the most ... seemingly liberal peoples, could not live together, and chose their Velvet Revolution.

>This should not be mistaken for primordialism. These identities, religious identities, had been accommodated in the Ottoman Empire, as they had been in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where you see cities like Jerusalem, Damascus, Aleppo, Baghdad, have very distinct quarters for Armenians, Shi’ites, Sunnis, Jewish Quarter, Catholic, Orthodox – all these different quarters, where people lived cheek by jowl. Now, that didn’t necessarily mean that they saw each other as equals, but they had much more in common than separated them.

>>17894518
>There might be walls between these different sections of town, but the Ottoman Empire was able to contain the centrifugal forces of these many different groups, and keep them. And that was the power of the Ottomans – that’s why the Ottoman Empire lasted for 500 years; it’s one of the central arguments that every historian makes, is that the Ottoman Empire was more successful than Spain, than much of medieval Europe, because it accommodated these different identities and peoples in a happy empire – and Jews fled Spain, where they were evicted, and came to Istanbul, where they were protected. And so it’s nationalism – it’s a very modern ... notions of community and difference that turn these identities into something completely different.

>They’re radically changed, and, unfortunately, these religious differences, which had sat more lightly on people, get turned into very important differences, and that’s why we’re seeing Shi’ite and Sunni, all of a sudden, recognising who they are – people who didn’t even know the difference, really, are now ... they’ve become profoundly important, in the same way that Czechs and Slovaks, or so forth ... in a way, religion has become the new ethnicity in the Middle East; and that’s a great danger, because it does rip people apart, and it leads to things like the Armenians being ... the holocaust of the Armenians, with the rise of Turkish nationalism; the driving out of Palestinians, with the rise of Jewish nationalism.
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/2017/04/21/the-syrian-war-adam-shatz-talks-to-joshua-landis