History Multiculturalism in history - any examples?

[kfc1]

Here's one for the historians. Are there any examples of multiculturalism having been a medium to long term success in any country in history (up to, say, the 18th century)?

By this I mean that two obviously different cultures living under the same 'nation' or empire, united as part of that nation and without one of them being oppressed. Obviously it's never going to be properly 50/50 but I want to exclude examples where a particular culture was not eligible to serve government office, as an example.

The reason that I ask this is that I'm wondering if multiculturalism is purely a recent enlightened invention. With people seemingly unable to let go of the past (cf numerous arguments about shit that happened thousands to hundreds of years ago between various countries) are we fighting human nature to try and achieve multiculturalism? Based on history, is it inevitable that it is just going to fall apart at some tipping point or are there examples of success co-existence we can look to for inspiration?

 

[mantis]

OOPS, I accidentally logged onto stormfront.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Examples? Probably most cities in history.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Here's one for the historians. Are there any examples of multiculturalism having been a medium to long term success in any country in history (up to, say, the 18th century)?

Rome

/thread

 

[kfc1]

Rome

/thread

I'm not an ancient history buff so could you please elaborate?

There may have been a period(s) in Rome where multiculturalism existed happily (I do not know), however the Roman Empire certainly did its fair share of mistreating minorities. As an example, try the Gothic War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376–382)

 

[Gough]

Perhaps it would help debate here if you defined multiculturalism as you see it, it may be interpreted a number of ways.

 

[Scotland]

Flawed concept which is championed by the naive and has debate stifled by the simple (see post #2).

Trying to engage one of the 'multiculralists' in debate about why 'multiculturalism' has worked in Australia is a pretty pointless exercise. Just save yourself the time and proclaim yourself a bigot/racist/redneck/etc.

 

[kfc1]

Perhaps it would help debate here if you defined multiculturalism as you see it, it may be interpreted a number of ways.

From the OP:

two obviously different cultures living under the same 'nation' or empire, united as part of that nation and without one of them being oppressed.

That'll do as a starting point.

I'm more interested in learning about history than I am about debates as to whether it can be achieved, or whether X is the proper definition of multiculturalism etc. so hopefully the thread goes in that direction.

 

[Gough]

It's important to remember that multiculturalism is still in it's infancy globally. It has only really been in the past 70 years that technology has allowed people have been able to move from one country to another in any serious numbers thus transporting their culture. So inevitably there are teething problems.

That said, I would argue that multiculturalism in Australia has largely succeeded, very rarely do you see the events of last week in Sydney, we live peacefully in multi-ethnic society and we enjoy a standard of living that is largely the envy of the world.

 

[evo]

Rome

/thread

yeah Rome was what came to my mind. It was pretty diverse at its peak.

 

[evo]

That said, I would argue that multiculturalism in Australia has largely succeeded, very rarely do you see the events of last week in Sydney, we live peacefully in multi-ethnic society and we enjoy a standard of living that is largely the envy of the world.

Course it has. I don't give a shit what some people say Australians, at least in the major cities, are about the most tolerant people in the world.

 

[rayven]

Persians appear as religously tolerant as any empire ever has been.If you wanted to go to your synagogue or cathedral (right alongside mosques) you had to pay a tax, after that you were free to do whatever in the designated holy areas. More modern examples of multi cultural societies would be Libya and Iraq before we invaded them and even Iran to an extent, also Palestine pre ww1. These cultures encouraged there women and children to go experience other cultures.

However for a closer example, this land pre 1788 had various cultures living next door to eachother, trading, marrying and frolicking amongst eachother for thousands and thousands of years.

 

[kfc1]

re: the Persians - why were other religions taxed but not mosques? (assuming I have inferred correctly what you meant in your post). Also, why did the Empire break down?

However for a closer example, this land pre 1788 had various cultures living next door to eachother, trading, marrying and froliking amongst eachother for thousands and thousands of years.

At the risk of opening Pandora's box here - they weren't a united nation. Otherwise, not the worst example.

 

[Monniehawk]

Flawed concept which is championed by the naive and has debate stifled by the simple (see post #2).

Trying to engage one of the 'multiculralists' in debate about why 'multiculturalism' has worked in Australia is a pretty pointless exercise. Just save yourself the time and proclaim yourself a bigot/racist/redneck/etc.

OK.
Close the thread..

 

[Old Spice]

Going to give you something longer soon, but just for now the Roman Empire; the Holy Roman Empire; the period of Alexander the Great; the Achaemenid Empire; Russia under Tsarism and Soviets; the Austro-Hungarians; the Napoleonic period, the Muhammadean states and you can go on.

Really, the abberation in terms of multiculturalism came with the rise of the national question from the 19th century, although there was a wide divergence of opinion about that amongst nationalists who were still then in a minority - given most people were illiterate and would identify with their region and communicate through their local dialects.

Most people up to then never travelled more than a 10km radius from their place of birth and had no conception (because it hadn't been invented) of belonging to a nation state.

A nation is not something historically which has been 'discovered' but something which has been invented and made up.

 

[rayven]

re: the Persians - why were other religions taxed but not mosques? (assuming I have inferred correctly what you meant in your post).

Good question, I was taught that mosques were run by the empire or at least passed on revenue to the empire. Monothiest religon is a corporate thing that actively seeks money out of its followers. So its only fair.

At the risk of opening Pandora's box here - they weren't a united nation.

There was a couple hundred nations, that lived in relitive peace amongst eachother. One of the ways they achieved that was not just threw marriage but also bonding children threw cermonies, from hundreds of miles away who may never meet, this achieved things like tolerance and reminded everyone we are all connected.

 

[Old Spice]

re: the Persians - why were other religions taxed but not mosques? (assuming I have inferred correctly what you meant in your post). Also, why did the Empire break down?

At the risk of opening Pandora's box here - they weren't a united nation. Otherwise, not the worst example.

The Achaemenid Empire (Persians) pre-date Muhammed (and therefore Islam) by some 1,200 years. Under Cyrus the Great, Jews were allowed to return to Judah/Jerusalem after they had been exiled from Isreal by the Assyrians some 50 years earlier.

Empires broke down all over the place, because the ancient world was brutal in a scramble for resources (and power).

 

[Mofra]

How about Australia?
1850s Goldrush: The Chinese are different, their mines are round not rectangle. They'll never assimilate
1880/90s: The Irish are violent drunks, they'll never assimilate
Mid 20th century: We need to keep Government Departments at seperate Catholic and Protestant ones. They'll never assimilate.
1960s: These Greeks & Italians eat funny food. They'll never assimilate
1970s & 80s: These Vietnamese look different. They'll never assimilate

2010s: Islamic hysteria anyone?

 

[Monniehawk]

Course it has. I don't give a shit what some people say Australians, at least in the major cities, are about the most tolerant people in the world.

Tend to agree. Even so, like most situations where people are identified by group, it can be pretty fragile. Hatred can rear up and hit you pretty quickly.
Having said that, some countries I've been to cruise along without any fuss at all.
Nepal has a very big mix. The recent turmoil was a political one between communists and the monarchy. Indians (Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.), Chinese, Tibetans, Bhutanese have a respect for each other. I found no animosity to others and the Nepalese were very supportive of the refugee populations from Bhutan, Tibet and even a large clutch of Somalis who were dumped there by people smugglers. This hospitality is astounding given the huge influx of refugees and the poverty of the country. Nepali people were respectful and tolerant of the Hindu holy men (Baba, I think they call them), although less enamoured as they don't work and expect hand outs.
Indonesia also has a complex mix (claims of up to 300 ethnic groups, although generally these are of wider Indonesian origin - Javanese being the biggest) and is predominantly Moslem. They also have many merging or hybrid ethnic groups (Betawi?, etc.) which makes the 300 figure a little inflated, I guess.
South America is a melting pot, too. E.g., Chile has just over 40% Amero-Indian and the rest are mostly from all over Europe and the Middle East. Brazil likewise: 200m people (predominantly 'white', 5% native) with similar big waves of migration from Europe (Italy, Portugal and Spain mostly), Africa, etc, with Japan lately swelling numbers. It is one of the fastest growing economies in the world atm and currently ranked 5th biggest! Argentina, Peru, etc. all cope very well with diverse groups side by side. They just think Chile is up itself.

 

[kfc1]

How about Australia?

From the OP:

up to, say, the 18th century

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I'm not an ancient history buff so could you please elaborate?

There may have been a period(s) in Rome where multiculturalism existed happily (I do not know), however the Roman Empire certainly did its fair share of mistreating minorities. As an example, try the Gothic War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376–382)

I'll get back to you on that after work

 

[The Goon]

From a nation point of view pretty much any empire really: Roman, Alexander the Great, Austro-Hungarian, the Ottomans, The Caliphate, etc etc etc.

From an individual point of view there are scant examples simply because most people didn't really travel far from where they were born.

 

[Northalives]

Britain, Germany, France and Spain, amongst others, have never been "multicultural". They were colonial powers who went around annexing land all over the place and turning those "acquired" lands into British, French etc. outposts. They were in fact part of their colonial empires.

The peoples of these lands became citizens of the various colonial powers: they weren't asked if they wanted to be, they were told. That is why there are "Indian", "Pakistani", "West Indian" etc. etc people in Britain and the only reason I call them "Indian", "Pakistani" etc. is to identify their country of origin/heritage because by law, British Law that is, they are British. So when we hear the rantings of your Cameron's, Merkel's, Sarkozy etc. about how "multiculturalism" has not worked, what they really are saying is that their predecessors, the ones that went out and conquered foreign lands and their peoples, they stuffed up! They should have kept the strong ones to work and had a breeding pool from which to provide labour in the future; the others should have been liquidated and certainly never ever have been made subjects of Britain, France, Germany etc. and certainly not allowed into "the mother country".

The sanctimonious and bigoted mongrels in those European countries who go around saying "multiculturalism" hasn't worked are saying in reality, that if people aren't white and Christian, then they are sub-human and inferior and shouldn't be there.

As another person posted in this thread, when the white fellas were transported out here, there were at least two hundred "countries" in Australia with over four hundred distinct languages. These people lived in relative harmony with each other for thousands upon thousands of years. They traded amongst each other and married and developed sign languages to communicate with other peoples from different "countries" because their spoken languages and spiritual beliefs were completely different.

Our country has a multicultural tradition spanning 40,000 years plus and the rest of us who came here or whose ancestors came here, would never have left our country of origin if we were not forced to do so whether that was because of famine, persecution, war or all of the preceding.
Some were transported out here for stealing bread to placate their hunger, for heaven's sake!

This is a land of beauty and diversity and peace and we are making inroads towards reconciling ourselves with the Aboriginal peoples whose land this is. We, the majority of non-Aboriginals, are cast offs or come from those who were cast offs from other lands, for whatever reason and we should be having a ball here instead of running around pointing fingers at others and calling them inferior.

The "multiculturalism has never worked and never will work" brigades, are paranoid and xenophobic due to lack of education or, are outright bigots and racists. These numbskulls don't realise that our "way-of-life" is the way it is because of the multiplicity of cultures that have been settling on this land for over two hundred years, not to mention the Aboriginal peoples that have been here for forty millennia.

Disgraceful pigs like Cory Bernardi and others who pull out the race card for some political objective, are the ones that need to be condemned, not the decent and advanced pursuit of harmonious existence together regardless of race, colour and creed.

 

[Monniehawk]

A nation is not something historically which has been 'discovered' but something which has been invented and made up.

Good point! Most groups were just advancements of tribes who settled in villages which eventually became city-states. Like Rome. Italy didn't have imperial power, because it didn't exist as such. Rome was a city and at war with other city-states like Florence and Sienna, so there was a lot of conflict before the city states joined and transmogrified into 'nations'. Still very much in flux. The old Yugoslavia is a case in point. Prior to formation in 1929, it was a collection of a handful of Slavic/Balkan states and reverted back in the 90's. Borders and nations change overnight, but ethnicity alters a little more slowly.

 

[Xsess]

I'm a bird lover. I feed a range of wild birds that come onto my property. Recently I decided to build a cage and place hawks with doves, parrots with magpies, seagulls with chickens, owls with wagtails. Why am I going to do that? Because I believed all birds are equal and that they should all learn to live together in harmony and be respecting of each other. As time goes by I'm finding most have died from stress while others attack and feed off them, but I'm just going to keep placing and replacing them all in the same cage without end because I'm so certain that what I believe, will one day become a reality. I know I'm right because after all, all birds are the same.