Has multiculturalism ever worked?

Has multiculturalism ever worked?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Historically nations spanning different nationalities have either collapsed or have been defeated.

Literally all these people were right

It's working out okay so far

Historically damn near everything has.

No, multiculturalism has never worked.
The nation state is the real model of polities because it has been around for the last 300 odd years and coincides with the United states. Everything else is shit.

Rome did pretty well, all things considered, and for quite a long time

right, not like the glorious ethnic state of the german reich, which reigns supreme for all eternity

The USA spans multiple nationalities and has been the largest economy since at least 1890 and premier power since 1918.

China is the second most powerful nation and has a very long history. It has multiple nationalities.

Russia as well.

The UK (English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish)

All of the Muslim empires, which spanned centuries.

Rome

It's basically impossible to be a large empire and not have multiple peoples.

Rome wasn't multicultural you dingus, almost everyone in the empire assimilated into Roman culture

I think you guys are confusing multiculturalism with multiple ethnicities. If the different ethnic groups assimilate or blend into one culture, it's not multicultural.

literally the roman fucking empire

I dont get when left wing types reference people from like the 1850s or 1920s like that cartoon does when, despite agreeing with those ideas or not, those people got their way. That is how Americas immigration policy worked in those times. So you cant really point and laugh at them as if they didnt get their way and were proven wrong.

Same goes with the pilgrim argument you see people make, or just europeans in early america in general. On one hand, they will say how they were just refugees/immigrants in their day, but they will also switch and tell how they were blood thirty conquerors in another depending on what is being argued at the time. This only makes the point for the no immigrant side that massive waves of them will only lead to you being conquered by them

No they didn't, especially not in the early days of the republic with Rome demanding tribute from other italic city states.

And again, Rome did not do this. Hell, they often kept certain other cultures around with completely separate martial traditions to help provide them with troops that their own traditional methods didn't train well, like skirmishers or cavalry.

No they didn't. They didn't even worship the same God's in the eastern providences and you had the problem multiple times of eastern born emperor's comming into Rome and offending Roman sensibilities.

Egypt, Syria, Judea, etc. all maintained unique cultures.

Romes annihilated Judea when they rebelled against them thoug

Yeah in the early days when Rome only controlled parts of Italy. The Gauls assimilated, the Greeks assimilated, The Iberians assimilated, the Anatolians assimilated, The Egyptians and Africans assimilated. The Jews and the Britons were pretty much the only cultures that didn't assimilate

Yes they did, see >

Which is why so much of their native religions, languages, methods of fighting, internal organization, and culture, for lack of a better term, stuck around. That doesn't seem all that assimilated to me.

>China is the second most powerful nation and has a very long history. It has multiple nationalities.
The Han are 92% of population

Not to mention Rome started settling their borders with unassimilated Germanics to act as border guards starting in the 3rd century.

>Persian Empire embraces multiculturalism
>Did pretty darn well for itself
>Gets conquered by the son of Zeus
>Proceeds to embrace and spread his brand of blended cultures in east and west
>empire falls cause he mumbles on his deathbed
>effects of his empire are felt for centuries, if not millennia
Yeah multiculturalism will be the death of civilization

>
>Which is why so much of their native religions
Many pagans incorporated Roman gods into their pantheon, then the entire became Christian because that the state religion of Rome
>languages
In some cases they stayed yes, but not all. Almost all of Gaul and Iberia were speaking Latin by the time the empire collapsed. Anyone who wanted an important government job needed to learn Latin as well.
>methods of fighting
Not at all, the entire empire ran on the military legions of Rome
>internal organization
Roman administration became standard and got rid of almost all tribalism in the empire, all the kingdoms that came after Rome kept its administrative practices.

>Greeks
>assimilated

No they didn't dumbass, the Romans assimilated to them. That's why not only did the Greeks never stop speaking their language or worshiping their their gods, but actually got the Romans to start speaking Greek and worshiping the Olympians as well.

Also I find it hard to believe that Roman Egypt and Roman Gaul didn't have cultures very distinct from one another, even if they both paid tribute to Rome.

>No they didn't dumbass
Yes they did
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

Fuck you, greeks ruined ME with their shit culture and language

Multiculturalism is too vague to be a worthwhile lens for historical contexts.

>Japanese immigrants in 1850

1 Jap immigrated in 1861, so it obviously counts, you bigot.

>he entire empire ran on the military legions of Rome
Which relied heavily on foreign auxiliary units.

>1850
>japanese immigrans
wtf i thought it was literally illegal and punishable by death for a japanese to set foot on foreign soil back then

Only Germans, near the end of the empire's life, who assimilated

2000 years ago white people nailed some Dude to a tree for saying that people shouldn't be such dicks to each other. So you tell me.

It never ceases to amaze me how racist fucks always claim to be Christian, yet completely disregard His teachings

1. 1780 was smack dab in the middle of the American revolution.
2. 1850 was during the Compromise of 1850 which was trying to defuse tensions that eventually resulted in a Civil War in 1861.
3. 1920 was just before the great depression.

All those times America really was in a large amount of social chaos and upheaval.

Rome and carthage

>China, Russia, the UK, Rome
One thing that you guys forgot to mention is that the different cultures of these states had their own territories. The individuals didn't move much, but the borders of the state did, and their entire peoples rather suddenly found themselves in.
It's quite different from modern migrations into highly urban societies, where individuals come from everywhere into the cities of the locals and live as neighbours even when they form ethnic neighbourhood.

Gauls and Egyptians didn't become culturally close but neither did they become geographically close. That must have made things easier.

I guess all those people in Anatolia, Syria, Judea, Macedonia, and Egypt spoke Latin instead of Greek.

>>Gets conquered by the son of Zeus
What does this have to do with multiculturalism

The North Han just declared to the other peoples "you are Han now". See Hakka, Yue, Wu, Cantonese, etc. Up until fairly recently, "Chinese" is not mutually intelligible between different parts of the country, which would separate "Han" Chinese into different ethnicities by most standards.

> What is Numibian Cavalry
> What is Baleric Slingers
> What is Cretan Archers

What are you even talking about? All I said was that the people of the empire converted to Christianity after it became the state religion. What did I say that was racist?

Baleric slingers and Cretan archers weren't foreigners, they were part of the empire. And the Romans never hugely relied on Nubian cavalry

Wrong, their cavalry force was largely Gauls. Also employed archers from Syria, etc. Pretty much, anything not heavy infantry was outsourced after the Marian reforms.

No but they weren't Italians, and served as auxillaires since they weren't citizens.

japanese and jews were like 1% of the population

>native religions
First of all, many of the people they conquered had similar pantheons in the first place. The Romans quite often equivocated foreign Gods with their own and referred to them by the names of their Latin counterparts. In turn, many locals began referring to their gods in the Latin or Greek name. And that's to say nothing of the fact that Christianity spread quickly throughout the Empire from the 2nd to 5th Century, quickly becoming the religion of the Empire. Classical European paganism only survived in areas untouched by the Empire (Scandinavia and the Baltics)
>languages
But Latin became the only language of government spoken in parts of Empire, like Iberia, Gaul, North Africa and of course, Italy. In the rest of the Empire, the State was happy to do business in Greek, but Romans had been speaking Greek for centuries. Continental Celtic has completely died out during the Empire and we have no idea what Iberian even sounds like.
>methods of fighting
Honestly seems like more a result of physical and material circumstances than a factor of culture as armies are be definition a very pragmatic institution. With that said, many provincial soldiers simply became legionary heavy infantry or auxiliary cavalry/spearmen to hold the flank. Some areas, like the Balearic Islands maintained an eccentric martial tradition because the Roman legion found such a unique use for them. But we shouldn't hold every corner of the empire to the same standard. In the east, traditional phalanx warfare and Eastern chariot-based armies completely died out. The areas of the Levant and Anatolia completely lost whatever martial traditions they had.
>internal organization
This, I don't understand. The Imperial Cult and constant correspondence between Emperor and his subjects is the absolute focal point of the Roman Empire. This was achieved by an imperial bureaucracy the completely overrided many of the existing political structures.
lol hi Muhammad

>literally fucking imperialism, based on slavery and latinisation of inferior cultures
>HUHH DURR THE ROMANS WERE MULTICULTURAL, CHECK MATE DRUMPFSTERS

there's nothing to see lmao he just says nu uh when in fact the Gauls, Greeks, and Egyptians by no means outright assimilated. They submitted for the most part went along with most things, but they maintained a distinct way of life that was nothing like that in Italy.

Rome is multicultural AS FUCK it's entirely pants on head retarded to think an empire of a bajillion ethnicities all just melted into some pot where everyone was kumbayaing to Zeus

>i know nothing about the roman empire.png
kindly fuck off

Not in the sense modern liberals mean it.
Multiculturalism as many ethnic groups living together seamlessly pretty much literally never happened. People willingly self-segregated, everybody looked at their group's interest before the country's, and the only way to actually rule many people was autocracy, with the ruler playing one group against the other.
Eventually, one of two things inevitably happened: either the ruling ethnic group completely crushed and absorbed dominated groups, or ethnic tensions were used to break away from the country.

Multiculturalism works, but swedish style "its not rape if they're brown" doesn't. Basically, it works if you can go about it in a non-retarded way.

Pantheon!= religion, your entire argument is invalid.

>. And that's to say nothing of the fact that Christianity spread quickly throughout the Empire from the 2nd to 5th Century, quickly becoming the religion of the Empire
Often against the wishes of the Empire's cultural elite, and even when it was, you have profound regional differences in Christianity which persist to this day, often evidence of their pagan roots.

>Italy. In the rest of the Empire, the State was happy to do business in Greek, but Romans had been speaking Greek for centuries. Continental Celtic has completely died out during the Empire and we have no idea what Iberian even sounds like.
Now do the same for Syriac, Aramaic, Punic, and German. Oh, wait....
>. With that said, many provincial soldiers simply became legionary heavy infantry or auxiliary cavalry/spearmen to hold the flank.
The auxiliares were enormously more varied than that. And when you get to the later Imperial eras, things like the Limatenei became more varied still.

>This, I don't understand. The Imperial Cult and constant correspondence between Emperor and his subjects is the absolute focal point of the Roman Empire. This was achieved by an imperial bureaucracy the completely overrided many of the existing political structures.
You might want to look up as to hwow the empire functioned (to say nothing of the republic) for literally hundreds of years, with lots of client kings who would literally administrate their own lands and pay tribute to Rome, most of them only losing their titles through testate reasions. You might want to look up who the Herodian dynasty is if you're interested in biblical stuff, or areas like Armenia or Cilicia.

Switzerland

T. Chang Chong-Ching

"All Tibet is a Chinese a people!"

>the existence of slavery and the influence of latin (hahahahaha) dismisses the entirely obvious fact the Roman empire maintained countless distinct ways of life as long as each region paid sufficient tribute.

you just might be retarded

>And again, Rome did not do this. Hell, they often kept certain other cultures around with completely separate martial traditions to help provide them with troops that their own traditional methods didn't train well, like skirmishers or cavalry.
This is dumb. Rome did that, but the cultures were kept as non-citizens. Those who got the promotion to full citizenship (pretty much only the noility) were expected to behave as romans rather than locals and see themselves as romans rather than whatever they were before.
You can call this multiculturalism in the most literal sense, but within the modern acception (which is clearly what op is looking for), it obviously doesn't apply.

Rome was both multicultural and not it depends on the time. You can’t expect Rome to not try both it lasted for a thousand years

What is the Social War?

I mean, Italians were rebelling against Rome up until the end of the Republic because Roman law and tradition kept them separate.

When Elagabalous came to Rome everyone got butthurt by how Eastern he was.

The Illyrian Emperors were called that by contemporaries because they weren't Roman. Shit, Diocletian was Emperor for 20 years before bothering to go to Rome. Rome became irrelevant because the cultural center of gravity shifted East. That wouldn't have happened if the culture was the same everywhere.

The modern equivalent of the roman empire would be the USA conquering all south american countries, give them no citizenship nor representation, expect them to pay taxes and give bodies for the army, and in exchange not bother interfering with their culture. Well so long as not american is bothered with it and it doesn't clash with american culture, otherwise away it goes.
If you call this multiculturalism, then yes, Rome was multicultural.

All these supposed multicultural empires of the past that people keep bringing up had one important trait, there was almost always a hegemonic cultural group that always had the authority and ruled over all the other groups, even when these groups were tolerated or even had some autonomy. In modern multiculturalism all cultural groups within a country are declared to be equal. There is no hegemonic group by definition.

So no, historical empires can't be equated with the countries in the modern Western World, regardless of what opinion you have about one or the other.

>USA
And lokk how that turned out
>China
Because they have ridiculously low freedoms
>Russia
Not anymore pal
>The UK
And all of them hate the English
>the Muslim empires
That constanly fell and fought amongst themselves internally and externally

>That wouldn't have happened if the culture was the same everywhere.
I don't think anyone doubts that there were multiple ethnic groups within the roman empire, but I'm pretty sure than op is asking about multiculturalism in the political sense, aka the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, and policies for the promotion and maintenance of cultural diversity, which Rome in no way practiced.

Rome lasted as a powerful empire for less time than the superior Eastern Empire.

Notably, Byzantium was less multi-cultural.

>And look how that turned out
A near global hegemony, the highest GDP in the world, with the most powerful military in the world.

>I'm pretty sure than op is asking about multiculturalism in the political sense, aka the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, and policies for the promotion and maintenance of cultural diversity
Ok so a recent phenomenon that didn't exist historically and discussion of which has no place on the history board

Too bad that the american concept of melting pot runs straight against multiculturalism, so the USA if anything are an argument against it.

That's basically what I said here

Sadly for you multiculturalism in the political sense is much more than 25 years old, so while recent enough for the thread to be pointless, it's still a fair topic for this board.

OP's pic conveniently uses the 'wreck the economy' line despite even anti-immigration groups acknowledging that mass immigration significatnly improves a country's GDP.
The *cultural* argument is what is invoked instead.

The important point is that these countries often have their peoples living apart from another. In the few moments when they did mix (before the age of easy travel) it was mostly the educated classes that mixed rather than the ghettoisation of the working class communities we see today.
The example of the UK is spurious as the cultural similarities of the different Nations vastly outnumber the differences.
Even when waves of immigrants were absorbed it still caused much trouble at the time and opened the door for political populism to take hold.

The only reason immigration is good is because it helps your economy. Other than that it's rather detrimental and deciding policy should be taken with care.

I was talking about foreign troops, Gauls and Syrians weren't foreigners, they were part of the empire

The topic were auxiliaries. Gaulish cavalry and syrian archers were auxiliaries.

Multi ethnic isn't the same as multi cultural. Almost everyone in the Roman Empire assimilated into Roman culture.

No, the topic was "foreign auxiliaries"

China and the USA are not actual multi-ethnic empires. even if 'white' and 'Han' are memes to Veeky Forums, neither in the eyes of the actual Han or the American whites is either identity false. american white identity exists because whites define themselves in opposition to groups that are more different to all of them than they are to each other, i.e., mestizos, blacks, asians, etc. so they are actually fairly close. i suspect a similar process happened in china. I cant speak to China but america has been like 70% anglo-germanic for most of its existence. Russia is what, 81% russian? i cant imagine it was ever different. were ukrainians even considered their own ethnicity back then?

Cultures didn't become citizens or remain not citizens, individuals did. And even the highest estimates I've seen put the Italic population of 25% citizens at most. Citizenship has no bearing.

Out of the Romans, Persians, Chinese, Ottomans and Indian empires i think the persians, chinese and ottomans got it to work effectively.

also that picture is dumb because it acts like just because the US hasn't collapsed yet, the nation has't been profoundly changed. It's far from anti-semitic or incorrect to say that jews have played a large part in the recent development of the USA. And i shouldn't have to overstate the impact of mexicans.

Daily Reminder home grown multiculturalism ruins countries
Opposed to Immigrants bringing aspects of their culture with them.

Auxilia refer to non-roman citizens serving in the military. They were have been considered foreigners. They weren't Roman citizens.

Most Romans weren't Roman citizens. Were they foreigners?

For each picture a ideal type of americanism died. The founding fathers did not have the current USA in mind when they declared independence, remember that
>Comfy nation of hard working and smart people
>Not a warmonger republic
>Trully a bastion for real freedom

Also pathetic, the arguments arent solely economic, it's racial too, but libcucks never seem to be able to refute that so they ignore and shout racism

I don't think it's vague, but its meaning is strictly for modern purposes. It's like trying to find out what ancient culture was most feminist

So I take it you have no understanding of Roman citizenship (Cives Romani, Latini, Socii, Peregrini, etc).

Keyword being: rebelled
Not: having a different culture

>This isn't multiculturalism
>That isn't multiculturalism
>This isn't either
Name me one relevant example then

>it's racial too
yeah, damn libruls calling racial arguments racist.
What are you trying to say here? That something being racist is not an argument against it?

No, I'm saying your focus on civitas is idiotic because even when solely talking about natives of the city of Rome itself, a small minority of people possessed it. To claim that foreigners were not part of the Roman social fabric because they did not possess it is bunk; most non-foreigners didn't possess it either.. Socii were NOT citizens, and even most of the Latini did not get the various Lus rights until the Social war, late into the Republican era.

You wiki-searching an article on some basic latin doesn't make your argument any less idiotic.

> were Ukrainians even considered their own ethnicity back then

The Russian empire considered Ukrainians and Belorussians to be Russians, and Ukrainian/Belorussian to be dialects of Russian. "Proper" Russia was called "Great Russia", Ukraine was "Little Russia", and Belarus was "White Russia".

> American white identity exists because whites define themselves in opposition to groups that are more different to all of them than they are to each other

I'd say the "Han" identity emerged out of not opposition to other racial groups, but opposition to foreigners as a whole. When China was getting buttfucked daily by westerners, antagonizing your own population by not considering them "Chinese" is dumb.

Each category I listed was a class of citizenship.

>To claim that foreigners were not part of the Roman special fabric because they didn't possess it
I never said this, but keep spouting nonsense.

perhaps it's better to think of multiculturalism on a spectrum? no sane person should consider the Republican Romans co-existing with other Italics the same as the USA's mass importation of racial aliens, even though both involve 'multiculturalism'.

I'd go as far as saying it's one of those politically charged terms that are so inconsistently defined across the broad population that it is almost worth discarding altogether.

You're mistaking administration for culture which is a common mistake. Literally all of the eastern empire was so culturally and economically different that they formed their own states then empires numerous times.

If you think Gauls, Dacians, and Syrians were closer to Italians than Mexicans to "Anglos", boy do I have news for you.

No. The most successful country was the Austro-Hungarian empire and look how well that turned out.
Societies need homogeneity to work. You have to have very few reasons to hate your neighbor for you to want to help your neighbor. Humans are extremely tribal.

>Each category I listed was a class of citizenship.
No, only Civitas is citizenship. The others possessed ancillary rights, but none of the rights of a citizen of Rome. You dind't suddnely move from one category to the other when you completed your post-Marian legionary service, you became a Peregrinus (which isn't a legal status of its own, it's someone who attained Civitas while not being born with it), regardless of what you were beforehand.

This is intuitively obvious, because if you truly believed that all of the above statuses were "Roman Citizens", then your comment back up here that Auxilia were not roman citizens is dead wrong, BECAUSE AUXILIA WERE ALWAYS DRAWN FROM SOCII YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

This level of frustration while still spouting nonsense. Rome had a distinction between full citizen, and "lesser citizens". Saying a Roman wouldn't consider a Syrian or Gaul a foreigner is absolute rubbish.

>Germany
>ever being mono ethnic

>white people killed Jesus Christ
Ask me how I know you're American.

You mean the unstable tyranny that needed conquest to stay afloat?

You claimed in post that, and I quote

>Auxilia refer to non-roman citizens serving in the military.

You then claim that Socii were citizens. Socii, in the likely case that you don't know, are client states sworn to Rome; which was the source of Auxilia. If Socii are citizens (but a lesser citizen, and please, feel free to provide a citation that anyone contemporary considered them such), then how do you defend your former claim?

Because they actually understand that the American term "white" doesn't mean the aryan meme race?