Thread replies: 29
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Large, heterogeneous societies = least successful and stable historically? 2016-07-22 08:10:46 Post No. 1446364
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Large, heterogeneous societies = least successful and stable historically? 2016-07-22 08:10:46 Post No. 1446364
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 3352592_orig[1].jpg (156KB, 900x770px) Image search:
[Google]
![3352592_orig[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9Nff5fi.jpg "3352592 orig[1]")
156KB, 900x770px
Large, heterogeneous societies = least successful and stable historically?
Anonymous
2016-07-22 08:10:46
Post No. 1446364
[Report]
>There is perhaps some hope to be derived from the fact that in most instances where an attempt to realize an ideal society gave birth to the ugliness and violence of a prolonged active mass movement the experiment was made on a vast scale and with a heterogeneous population. Such was the case in the rise of Christianity and Islam, and in the French, Russian, and Nazi revolutions. The promising communal settlements in the small state of Israel and the successful programs of socialization in the small Scandinavian states indicate perhaps that when the attempt to realize an ideal society is undertaken by a small nation with a more or less homogeneous population it can proceed and succeed in an atmosphere which is neither hectic nor coercive."
-Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer"
How true is the above? Is stability impossible in large heterogeneous societies?
>>
>>1446364
Using early Bolshevik Russia as an example is the pinnacle of cherry-picking,and you know very well why,don't you?
>>
>>1446364
That would depend on your definitions of successful and stable
>>
Society with small/no white population = least successful and stable historically
>>
File: Arbeia_Roman_Fort_reconstructed_gateway.jpg (572KB, 1280x960px) Image search:
[Google]
572KB, 1280x960px
Roman/Byzantine Empire was large and heterogeneous. It lasted for more then 1500 years. I call this success.
>>
>>1446364
You'll find a shitload of heterogeneous societies trough history. The French during the revolution didn't speak French in all of France. And Sweden have, despite being one of the oldest kingdoms in Europe, never been homogeneous, with either Finnish, Norwegian and Lapish people living within their borders.
>>
>>1446644
Disregard this idiocy,I've made this post without entirely reading Eric Hoff's quote.
>>
>>1446715
why are you even here?
>>
>>1446364
there's really not a huge issue about multiethnical nations, it's multicultural nations which implemented a savage culture into the civilized culture which fails and vice versa, see western rome, especially during 376 to its fall as they gave autonomous regions in the empire to the savage goth refugees, and current europe
>>
>>1446364
when you're successful you either trade with or conquer those around you so that tends to be the outcome
>>
China is large and heterogeneous. China is the most successful and stable society in the world.
>>
>>1446715
Explain East Asia, then.
>>
>>1446364
Rome and China prove you wrong.
>>
>>1447401
You know what, I didn't even realize I misread heterogeneous as homogeneous. Disregard me.
>>
>>1446364
Heterogenous societies are succesfull when they promote homogenization, like Rome or China. This tends to prevent them from overextending and help expansion (for example, by the time Rome conquerd Gaul, Italy was already latinized and the descendants of samnites, sabines etc. didn't want to gain independence anymore).
>>
File: Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png (357KB, 2534x1540px) Image search:
[Google]
357KB, 2534x1540px
>>1447514
Yeah just look at how homogeneous this was. Everybody sure looked the same, spoke the same language and worshiped the same gods.
>>
>>1447514
>None of these are heterogenous.
How do you figure?
Oh, let's also add the United States to that list.
>>
>>1447536
wew lad
>>
>>1447533
>looked the same
Mediterraneans which formed the bulk of the population certainly did more or less
>spoke the same language
Almost everybody either spoke Greek or Latin.
>worshipped the same gods
There was an astonishingly high degree of syncreticism among the classical pantheons.
>>
>>1447514
China is the most heterogeneous East Asian country.
>>
>>1446364
Yes, OP, let us ignore all those large fucking Empires in history which dictated the direction of the globe.
Let us also ignore how the great power brokers of the world right now, most of them are heterogenous: USA, China, and Russia.
Least Successful? Fuck off. Stable? Changes from time to time but hell its the price you pay for being one of history's drivers.
You want a successful and stable country? Live in a tiny kingdom in some periphery.
>>
>>1448134
Stability and social cohesion is more important than material wealth.
>>
>>1447401
>China is large and heterogeneous. China is the most successful and stable society in the world.
China is over 90% Han. It's 'heterogeneous' but with a dominant culture.
During the most unstable portions of its history such as the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Song-Jin dynasties, it was not homogenous at all.
>>
>>1448079
>meds are te same guys its not like they all had different roots and customs an gods or something
>>
>>1449519
Nah not when you can't feed or fund shit.
>>
>>1449887
Well a society where you can't feed or fund shit doesn't sound very stable.
>>
>>1447469
China? Japan?
Both unstable as fuck. Wars ravaged throughout the history.
Nah, I'm just kidding. I know what you mean. the government and the civilization is very stable in those region.
Thread posts: 29
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3