History Multiculturalism in history - any examples?

[R00StaR]

Theres a difference between embracing people of multiple cultures and disregarding your own for a mixed bag of everything. Most successful places have had a strong identity for immigrants to buy into, they arent timid afraid to protect their ways. America is a good example, its always been patriotic always had a strong sense of worth for people to buy into. Less so now and they appear to be sliding. When in Rome do as the Romans do wasnt said for nothing, it was buying into their ways. Immigrants buy into the host culture, it works.

Lose the identity, loss the will to defend or will to fight for it because whats the point if everythings the same? Then of course Rome had Germanic barbarians move across the borders seeking a better life from the empire, then a massive flood of them and boom....bye bye Rome. The Germanic people took on the Roman ways including the religions, it was stronger and better than their own even though they'd sacked Rome.

 

[Old Spice]

There was a great fluidity of power in the ancient world, which was why we had a pantheon of Gods in so many emerging / aspirant states. Empires didn't just eventuate, they grew from small city-states, which made a necessity of incorporating the deities of the conquered, at least in successful states. They also incorporated rulers from various regions. See Septimius Severus, Trajan or Hadrian.

But it also seems that once expires expanded from their fulcrums - Babylon, Heliopolis, Mesopotamia, Rome - monotheism followed in the wake. The 'Persian' Empire (actually a composite of Assyrians, Lydians, Persians Scythians) introduced Mazda and Zoroasterism; the Babylonians made their gods (Ninib, Nergal, Bel, Nabu, Sin, Samas, Addu) all manifestations of the one god Marduk; the Roman's under Constantine turned to Christ. Amenhotep IV made an attempt to make Aten the sole god, but the priestly caste made that a failure.

In any case, what this illustrates is that the ancients were very much concerned with incorporating other peoples and cultures into their world.

The medieval world was much more cloistered, but that did not stop monotheists from incroporating multiple peoples into their realm, albiet often on the most grotesque basis of requiring conformity to Christian piety while the ruling strata of Christianity all cavorted for orgies and piss ons with their brothers and cousins. A ruling-class family would either make monarchs or Arch-Bishops of their sons. Bishopry was more often a well-remunerated right rather than a 'calling'.

Nevertheless, monotheism did have a levelling element which only required subservience rather than ethnicity or language to be the gateway to cultural inclusion. The centre of Papal power shifted from Rome to Avignon.

As I say earlier, the abberation to a multicultural society is really the idea of nationalism which talks around, but can never define, just what the basis for national inclusion is. Is it geography, is it ethnicity (whatever that means), is it linguistics, is it culture. Lately 'culture' is the big buzz word, but I'm yet to understand how people are neatly quarantined in that way.

 

[Old Spice]

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.

Do you see life as a cage? That's a bit sad, and odd.

 

[Monniehawk]

Britain, Germany, France and Spain, amongst others, have never been "multicultural".

Are you sure?
Britain in particular, has long been multicultural. Difficult not to be when invaded so often. The Iron Age Celtic culture established with modern man and then the door blew open to waves of tribes from Germanic tribes: Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Goths, etc settling in various areas of the island.
Then Northern tribes like the Vandals and Vikings settled primarily around Scotland at various times. Many 'Scottish' names like Fergus(on), (Mc)Laren and prefix Mac are derivatives of the red-headed tribes of the Scandinavians.
Not to mention the later invasions of the Romans, Gauls and Normans.
The explanation for so many dialects of England becomes evident when looking at the 'invasions'. Even the language is Germanic by origin and eclectic by nature - French, Greek, Latin, Hindi and Slavic entered the largely Germanic grammatical structure. Now, virtually any language has established a niche in the Queen's English! Deliciously unstructured!
So, maybe the Poms really are just 'mongrels' in the truest sense - apart from cricket!

 

[Old Spice]

Theres a difference between embracing people of multiple cultures and disregarding your own for a mixed bag of everything. Most successful places have had a strong identity for immigrants to buy into, they arent timid afraid to protect their ways. America is a good example, its always been patriotic always had a strong sense of worth for people to buy into. Less so now and they appear to be sliding. When in Rome do as the Romans do wasnt said for nothing, it was buying into their ways. Immigrants buy into the host culture, it works.

Lose the identity, loss the will to defend or will to fight for it because whats the point if everythings the same? Then of course Rome had Germanic barbarians move across the borders seeking a better life from the empire, then a massive flood of them and boom....bye bye Rome. The Germanic people took on the Roman ways including the religions, it was stronger and better than their own even though they'd sacked Rome.

Rome only survived for so long precisely because they incorporated 'a mixed bag of everything'. The reason why America is 'successful' as a nation state is similar - it is a geo-political powerhouse. In the incorporating, the country changes and adapts.

And don't tell me there is some pure mono-culture everyone agrees on. The US Civil War springs to mind.

 

[Monniehawk]

Do you see life as a cage? That's a bit sad, and odd.

I don't think he can see anything much at all!
Oh! And good luck with his breeding program, too. Birds of a feather?
Conflating the human situation with avifauna that share such diverse genetics that they can't interbreed, is a far different scenario from a single species (homo sapiens) sharing cohabitation.
What a simplistic, moronic and prejudicial analogy!

 

[R00StaR]

Rome only survived for so long precisely because they incorporated 'a mixed bag of everything'. The reason why America is 'successful' as a nation state is similar - it is a geo-political powerhouse. In the incorporating, the country changes and adapts.

And don't tell me there is some pure mono-culture everyone agrees on. The US Civil War springs to mind.

Yes most have incorporated, they take on some of the foods, customs, clothing, spices ect but which slowly changed how some things were done and thought about, but they didnt just say to hell with our ways 'all are the same/ equal'. America was most successful with the majority buying into being patriotic Americans with western values. But times have changed, the world is small, less is unknown about other cultures, foods ect. Id argue all the good examples had a strong sense of their self worth, their values and stuck by them - and the incorporated largely embraced them.

The following interview takes a look at why/ how things have changed. Including us being post industrial, more information aged - meaning education, language ect become more important to 'incorporate'.

 

[Northalives]

Are you sure?
Britain in particular, has long been multicultural. Difficult not to be when invaded so often. The Iron Age Celtic culture established with modern man and then the door blew open to waves of tribes from Germanic tribes: Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Goths, etc settling in various areas of the island.
Then Northern tribes like the Vandals and Vikings settled primarily around Scotland at various times. Many 'Scottish' names like Fergus(on), (Mc)Laren and prefix Mac are derivatives of the red-headed tribes of the Scandinavians.
Not to mention the later invasions of the Romans, Gauls and Normans.
The explanation for so many dialects of England becomes evident when looking at the 'invasions'. Even the language is Germanic by origin and eclectic by nature - French, Greek, Latin, Hindi and Slavic entered the largely Germanic grammatical structure. Now, virtually any language has established a niche in the Queen's English! Deliciously unstructured!
So, maybe the Poms really are just 'mongrels' in the truest sense - apart from cricket!

Apologies for my sloppy work.

I should have expressly stated that the European countries I mentioned have not been multicultural societies since at least the Age Of Discovery.

 

[Monniehawk]

Theres a difference between embracing people of multiple cultures and disregarding your own for a mixed bag of everything.

There has been NO suggestion that we disregard our own culture. Silly or careless piece of extrapolation!
Embracing people who have another is hardly throwing ours away!
E.g. We have integrated many Catholic migrants, yet we are still predominantly Protestant. No loss of cultcha!

Most successful places have had a strong identity for immigrants to buy into, they arent timid afraid to protect their ways. America is a good example, its always been patriotic always had a strong sense of worth for people to buy into. Less so now and they appear to be sliding. When in Rome do as the Romans do wasnt said for nothing, it was buying into their ways. Immigrants buy into the host culture, it works.

It is that very nationalism that has primarily led to its demise. Constant conflicts with other sovereign nations eventually drained them. Like Rome, it is trying to spread the genes too far that has depleted its strength. Its expansionism has now become its Achilles heel.

Lose the identity, loss the will to defend or will to fight for it because whats the point if everythings the same? Then of course Rome had Germanic barbarians move across the borders seeking a better life from the empire, then a massive flood of them and boom....bye bye Rome. The Germanic people took on the Roman ways including the religions, it was stronger and better than their own even though they'd sacked Rome.

They didn't move in, actually. They were after Rome's treasures and had no real thoughts of occupancy. Just to pillage the village then move on. They took many of the Roman ideas with them, as had Rome who adopted many of the Greek, Aramaic and Egyptian cultural influences. That's how civilisations grow. They keep evolving and adapting.
Rome didn't fall because of multiculturalism - unless we have a vast revision of history and define plundering raids as assimilating with the natives!

Brazil, one of the world's emerging economies, has a diverse, vibrant cultural background and is powering its way forward. It is emerging as the greatest threat to US domination in that hemisphere. It is quite patriotic I suppose, but a different enough political, economic and cultural model.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

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

Civilisation IS multiculturalism. Wherever you have trade, you have multicultural societies, wherever you have trade you develop denser population centres and the birth of urban society and cities form. It is the very essence of civilisation. The idea of a heterogeneous society is probably more of an anomaly in human history than it is a rule.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

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.

Don't know about the rest but I do know that a lot of the islands annexed by the Javanese don't like the Javanese at all.

 

[Old Spice]

Yes most have incorporated, they take on some of the foods, customs, clothing, spices ect but which slowly changed how some things were done and thought about, but they didnt just say to hell with our ways 'all are the same/ equal'. America was most successful with the majority buying into being patriotic Americans with western values. But times have changed, the world is small, less is unknown about other cultures, foods ect. Id argue all the good examples had a strong sense of their self worth, their values and stuck by them - and the incorporated largely embraced them.

The following interview takes a look at why/ how things have changed. Including us being post industrial, more information aged - meaning education, language ect become more important to 'incorporate'.

I have no values at all in common with that f*cktard whose youtube video you posted, so immediately you have a problem setting up a distinction between 'our' values and 'theirs'. I've had the pleasure to work in workplaces with a wide mix of people whose origins, including mine, lie in other countries. The biggest problem I've found in the workplace has been the values of rapacious arseh*le managers whose very income is dependent on trying to screw the workforce.

So don't try and claim me as a cultural warrior with you because I'll have no truck with it. Thanks all the same.

 

[kfc1]

Civilisation IS multiculturalism. Wherever you have trade, you have multicultural societies, wherever you have trade you develop denser population centres and the birth of urban society and cities form. It is the very essence of civilisation. The idea of a heterogeneous society is probably more of an anomaly in human history than it is a rule.

No doubt, however this has in history usually brought with it the development of an underclass (cf modern UAE). In the past there definitely wasn't always the social conscious, welfare etc that we have these days to fulfill the aim of all having equal opportunities. What I'm interested in is not simply places where people of different cultures happened to live but societies where multiple cultures lived together, united under one nation or empire or whatever with relative equality. Something akin to what we want to achieve now but in pre-18th century history.

I'm by no means an ancient history buff, let alone an expert, but I'm aware of this situation existing for various relatively short periods before collapsing for various reasons. The Gothic War I linked to before is one example - the Jews in Germany is another.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Do you see life as a cage? That's a bit sad, and odd.

No point analysing it mate, I'm sure he just lifted this nonsense from a chain email circulated by one of his Boltist buddies

 

[The_Reaper]

Austria-Hungary?

Austria and Hungary are two distinct nations with different cultures and languages?

The Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

What I'm interested in is not simply places where people of different cultures happened to live but societies where multiple cultures lived together, united under one nation or empire or whatever with relative equality. Something akin to what we want to achieve now but in pre-18th century history.

Yeah, well, that's easy - Rome. The classic example, you've given an almost textbook definition of the Roman Empire. Rome itself was very multicultural, the city, a huge slave population, sure, which goes against your somewhat arbitrary preconditions for what constitutes 'multicultural' but it would be silly to try and understand ancient societies through our social norms, there was upward mobility for slaves. The army was another multicultural melting pot, anyone could rise through the ranks and become distinguished Romans. Sure, Rome crushed civilisations and cultures under its bejewelled foot, but at the same time if people accepted a certain level of Romanisation then they could continue their own cultural lives with a fair degree of autonomy.

 

[kfc1]

Yeah, well, that's easy - Rome. The classic example, you've given an almost textbook definition of the Roman Empire. Rome itself was very multicultural, the city, a huge slave population, sure, which goes against your somewhat arbitrary preconditions for what constitutes 'multicultural' but it would be silly to try and understand ancient societies through our social norms, there was upward mobility for slaves. The army was another multicultural melting pot, anyone could rise through the ranks and become distinguished Romans. Sure, Rome crushed civilisations and cultures under its bejewelled foot, but at the same time if people accepted a certain level of Romanisation then they could continue their own cultural lives with a fair degree of autonomy.

Did multiculturalism contribute to the fall of the roman empire? i.e. the inability to keep everyone happy?

Also, any others?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Did multiculturalism contribute to the fall of the roman empire? i.e. the inability to keep everyone happy?

Also, any others?

Short answer: no. Long answer: it's complicated. While it's true that some of the great barbarian leaders that overwhelmed Rome were leaders in the Roman army, at the same time Rome never conquered or assimilated Germania. Certainly not a problem of multiculturalism as we understand the word today. More a case of an over-extended and largely broke empire, an external problem. But there was a whole lot going on with Roman political structure at the end of the empire that left it vulnerable to decline. Even if you could link our modern understanding of culture to Roman society it would still be mistaken to try and pin it down to any one factor, least of all the internal cohesion of Roman society, which I think is at the heart of criticisms of multiculturalism, rather than the external forces offoreign invasion etc.

 

[Monniehawk]

Don't know about the rest but I do know that a lot of the islands annexed by the Javanese don't like the Javanese at all.

You started so well, then it all fell apart after the first two words......

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You started so well, then it all fell apart after the first two words......

Beautifully done mate.

It's killing me that I can't rep at the moment!

 

[John]

Did multiculturalism contribute to the fall of the roman empire? i.e. the inability to keep everyone happy?

Also, any others?

Actually it could be argued that a flood in the Spanish Silver mines was the cause of the final fall of the Roman empire. They run out of dosh and those that did not get paid went on a rampage. This is a lesson that is repeatedly not learnt by some, keep the workers in work and pay them.

 

[radiojake]

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.

Well - it wasn't from using the race card, but Bernardi is GAWN!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...mands-discipline/story-fn59niix-1226477656887
good riddance..


this thread is a joke, by the way - the birds in a cage analogy was the low point

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

You started so well, then it all fell apart after the first two words......

Tell me what part of it is wrong? I spent a number of years in the military as an Indonesian linguist, what Mal would could a SigsOp. Believe me, a lot of the populations on islands apart from Java don't like the Javanese.

The Javanese in places are / were trying to vote, displace and breed the local cultures out.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Rome

/thread

Yes true , and if you didn,t like multiculturalism, theres always crucifiction.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Fairly decent question. Answers can go both ways if critically analyzed. But hey, keep with the ... I am too foolish to read the site rules mantra of trying to shutdown debate with slurs. Clap Clap.

I think its a great question. But with Rome and multiculture , it was part of their technique to totally control conquered people. It was in their interests to become Romanised. But of course if they didn,t and kept fighting Rome would annihilate them, and I mean Annihilate , it was nothing to have Roman soldiers kill tens of thousands in a day , not unlike the crusaders in Jerusalem at one point.
So I don,t think Rome was really a multicultural society in the sense of living together in harmony.

We could put Australia now into the context of Rome, with the love it or leave it stickers actually meaning in reality, become us, or get out, or its the short sword through your innards.