By Victor Davis Hanson , NATIONAL REVIEW
The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity.
Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength.
Countries and societies that were ethnically homogeneous, such as ancient Germanic tribes or modern Japan, felt that they were inherently more stable and secure than the alternative, whether late imperial Rome or contemporary America.
Many societies created words to highlight their own racial purity. At times, “Volk” in German and “Raza” in Spanish (and “Razza” in Italian) meant more than just shared language, residence or culture; those words also included a racial essence. Even today, it would be hard for someone Japanese to be fully accepted as a Mexican citizen, or for a native-born Mexican to migrate and become a Japanese citizen.
Many cultures reflected their suspicion of diversity by using pejorative nouns for the “other.” “Odar” in Armenian denoted the rest of the world that was not ethnically Armenian. For Japanese, the “gaijin” are those who by nationality, ethnicity and race cannot become fully Japanese. In 18th-century Castilian Spain, “gringo” meant any foreign, non-native speakers of Spanish.
The Balkan states were the powder kegs of 20th-century world wars because different groups wanted to change national boundaries to reflect their separate ethnicities.
The premise of Nazi Germany was to incorporate all the German “Volk” into one vast racially and linguistically harmonious “Reich” — even if it meant destroying the national borders of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The constitution of Mexico unapologetically predicates national immigration policies on not endangering Mexico’s ethnic makeup.
Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.
Vast ethnically diverse empires such as those of the Austro-Hungarians, the Ottomans and the Soviets used deadly force to keep their bickering ethnic factions in line — and from killing each other.
Modern states such as multicultural or multi-tribal Rwanda, Iraq and Lebanon have often proved deadly failures. Europe is trying to emulate the multiracial but unified culture of the United States. But the European Union may well tear itself apart trying to assimilate millions of disparate migrants who are reluctant to fully assimilate.
America is history’s exception. It began as a republic founded by European migrants. Like the homogenous citizens of most other nations, they were likely on a trajectory to incorporate racial sameness as the mark of citizenship. But the ultimate logic of America’s unique Constitution was different. So the United States steadily evolved to define Americans by their shared values, not by their superficial appearance. Eventually, anyone who was willing to give up his prior identity and assume a new American persona became American.
The United States has always cherished its “melting pot” ethos of e pluribus unum — of blending diverse peoples into one through assimilation, integration and intermarriage.
When immigration was controlled, measured and coupled with a confident approach to assimilation, America thrived. Various ethnic groups enriched America with diverse art, food, music and literature while accepting a common culture of American values and institutions.
Problems arose only when immigration was often illegal, in mass and without emphasis on assimilation.
Sometime in the late 20th century, America largely gave up on multiracialism under one common culture and opted instead for multiculturalism, in which each particular ethnic group retained its tribal chauvinism and saw itself as separate from the whole.
Hyphenated names suddenly became popular. The government tracked Americans’ often complicated ethnic lineage. Jobs and college admissions were sometimes predicated on racial pedigrees and quotas. Courts ruled that present discrimination was allowable compensation for past discrimination.
Schools began to teach that difference and diversity were preferable to sameness and unity. Edgar Allan Poe and Langston Hughes were categorized as “white male” or “black” rather than as “American” authors.
Past discrimination and injustice may explain the current backlash against melting-pot unity. And America’s exalted idealism has made it criticized as less than good when it was not always perfect.
Nonetheless, for those who see America becoming a multicultural state of unassimilated tribes and competing racial groups, history will not be kind. The history of state multiculturalism is one of discord, violence, chaos and implosion.
So far, America has beaten the odds and remained multiracial rather than multicultural, thereby becoming the most powerful nation in the world.
We should remember that diversity is an ornament, but unity is our strength.
No I am not. I was not referring to what Israel is like, but what is needed. You were arguing for unity. I merely told you what is needed for unity.
What I am pointing out is that the greatest engine of assimilation in history is not the USA but France. France has succeeded for the most part by a ruthless policy of forced monoculturalism.
In 1900, half of France did not even speak standard Parisian French. Not even the USA was that badly fractured.
Yet,over history, France took in Germans, Alsatians, Vikings, Welsh Celts, Gauls, Latins, Italians, 8th century Arabs, East Europeans, Spanish, Basque, Occitans, and Provencals (all speaking their own language) and made Frenchmen out of them.
Sarkozy who is a mix of Hungarian and Jewish comes to mind.
If you want unity in Israel, you will have to implement the French method.
However, the French method is a state of all its citizens.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Now you are getting libelous. You are also showing your ignorance about us.
The US wants landed immigrants to speak English before becoming a citizen. More and more countries in Europe are demanding that potential citizens have a certain fluency in a particular language. Fluency in Hebrew is not a requirement for citizenship. Many Arab citizens don’t speak Hebrew. Israel is now teaching Arabic in elementary school.
The only Muslim celebration we are against is celebrating the “Naqba” and the death of martyrs.
I am for reducing the power of Hasidim and the money spent on them. I am for getting them into the army and workforce.
I, and most Israelis, am for civil marriage and for easier conversions both of which Hasidim are against.
There is absolutely no attempt in Israel to define only one culture. The opposite is true. the Arab culture is not in anyway being suppressed Nor is the Christian or B’hai culture being suppressed.
“Disenfranchise the rabbinate. Howls would occur.” No one wants to disenfranchise the Rabbinate. Israelis just want to reduce their power. Maybe this is what you are referring to. Only the rabbinate and their followers would howl but Israel is hamstrung from doing this because they are part of the governing coalition.
CuriousAmerican Said:
I would never refer to the Jewish people as being “homogeneous”. That term doesn’t apply to us. We have been considered a people for 3000 years Jewish peoplehood is a central part of Judaism. So is the “land of Israel” being God’s gift to us.
But over the millennium their have been rapes resulting in children and intermarriages and conversions. Bottom line is anyone who is born of a Jewish mother or converts according to orthodox standards is a Jew and part of the Jewish people. It doesn’t matter what their skin colour is or what part of the world they come from.
Israel exists for the Jewish people. Not all Jews accept this. The extreme left in Israel and the liberal Jews reject this and shy away from the notion of peoplehood. But both groups are dying out. What will remain is the Jewish people who embrace the idea of Zionism and Israel as the nation state of the Jews.
If you are arguing for a purer Jewish homogeneity, you might be right. However, to the degree that much – not all – of America’s multiculturalism was pushed by Liberal American Jews, it will be a hard sell now, especially to American Jews.
There are no more homogenous peoples left, except maybe Iceland which is about 98% Nordic and 84% Evangelical Lutheran Christian.
The Best Model may be France. Around 1900, half of France was not what we would consider even French.
France is split between the Gaullish Celtic North (The Core French) around Paris, Germanic Alsace-Lorraine, Viking settled Normandy, Breton/Welsh Brittany, the South West Basques, Southern (almost Spanish) Occitans, and Southeast Provencal/Catalans (who are closer to Spaniards than Parisians), and Italians.
In 1880, these people all spoke completely different languages and were discernibly distinct. Napoleon was born an Italian-Speaking Corsican.
But in 1789, France declared itself a Republic, and each citizen was an equal citizen of that Republic. The Parisian French language was imposed on everyone; but in return France became the state of all its citizens.
Absolute freedom of religion was allowed; but the French Catholic Church – which is still the church of the majority of the French – was ruthlessly disenfranchised from the public square under what is called laicité.
It worked, at least until the 1990s with an increase of Muslim immigration. France smashed together Norman Vikings, Bretons, Alsace-Lorrainers, Occitans, Basque/Italians/Provencal-Catalans and produced Frenchmen.
France could still even succeed forcing Muslims to assimilate if they would only toughen up a bit.
However, the price for this is assimilation and intermarriage. No Parisian cared if his daughter married an Occitan or Alsatian, and half of France was so anti-Catholic that marrying Protestants or Jews was considered trendy. Madame Curie was a Polish immigrant to France. Her husband was Protestant French. Their descendents are now heroes of France.
Civil marriage was allowed.
Israel is not ready to make that step.
To duplicate it, Israel would have to:
A) Ram down Hebrew on everyone’s throat. You would like that.
B) Suppress Muslim celebrations. You would love that.
C) Suppress Hasidim. You would howl.
D) Allow civil marriage. You would hate that
E) Define only one culture. Not even allowign Sephardi. Half of Israeli Jews would protest. France is not multicultural, like the USA or Britain.
F) Disenfranchise the rabbinate. Howls would occur.
G) Encourage a new definition of Israel as a state of all its citizens, with one language, one culture, and intermarriage.
Only recently has France weakened on its defintion, and that may change as the French are going back to monolculturalism. Marine Le Pen said that France’s Jews are just Frenchmen of a different religion.
Until the Algerian War, and a bit after, France would not take in Muslims. Algerian Jews but not Algerian Muslims were allowed French citizenship.
France is the way to do it; but it would involve changes that Israel is not ready to make.
Ruthless assimilation and intermarriage, with the goal of one culture, one state which is a state for all its citizens.
It worked for France up until 1980. Still does with non-Muslim immigrants.
Sarkozy was part Hungarian-Jewish.
Are you ready to do that? Allow intermarriage with Arabs and crush diversity, even suppressing Sephardi and Mizrahi into an Ashkenazi mold.
I think not.
France is quite successful at this. Do not rule out France, just because it has an interim problem with some Muslims. France has swallowed Lutheran Germans, Vikings, Welsh Bretons, Germanic Franks, Basque, Italians, and semi-Spanish Occitans, and spit out Frenchmen.
A temporary spike of Muslims will prove no match; but to do it, France had to secularize the state, and become a state of all its citizens.
Israel is not ready to do that.
If you are arguing for a purer Jewish homogeneity, you might be right. However, to the degree that much – not all – of America’s multiculturalism was pushed by Liberal American Jews, it will be a hard sell now, especially to American Jews.
There are no more homogenous peoples left, except maybe Iceland which is about 98% Nordic and 84% Evangelical Lutheran Christian.
The Best Model may be France. Around 1900, half of France was not what we would consider even French.
France is split between the Gaullish Celtic North (The Core French) around Paris, Germanic Alsace-Lorraine, Viking settled Normandy, Breton/Welsh Brittany, the South West Basques, Southern (almost Spanish) Occitans, and Southeast Provencal/Catalans (who are closer to Spaniards than Parisians), and Italians.
In 1880, these people all spoke completely different languages and were discernibly distinct. Napoleon was born an Italian-Speaking Corsican.
But in 1789, France declared itself a Republic, and each citizen was an equal citizen of that Republic. The Parisian French language was imposed on everyone; but in return France became the state of all its citizens.
Absolute freedom of religion was allowed; but the French Catholic Church – which is still the church of the majority of the French – was ruthlessly disenfranchised from the public square under what is called laicité.
It worked, at least until the 1990s with an increase of Muslim immigration. France smashed together Norman Vikings, Bretons, Alsace-Lorrainers, Occitans, Basque/Italians/Provencal-Catalans and produced Frenchmen.
France could still even succeed forcing Muslims to assimilate if they would only toughen up a bit.
However, the price for this is assimilation and intermarriage. No Parisian cared if his daughter married an Occitan or Alsatian, and half of France was so anti-Catholic that marrying Protestants or Jews was considered trendy. Madame Curie was a Polish immigrant to France. Her husband was Protestant French. Their descendents are now heroes of France.
Civil marriage was allowed.
Israel is not ready to make that step.
To duplicate it, Israel would have to:
A) Ram down Hebrew on everyone’s throat. You would like that.
B) Allow civil marriage. You would hate that
C) Define only one culture. Not even allowign Sephardi. Half of Israeli Jews would protest. France is not multicultural, like the USA or Britain.
D) Disenfranchise the rabbinate. Howls would occur.
E) Encourage a new definition of Israel as a state of all its citizens, with one language, one culture, and intermarriage.
Only recently has France weakened on its defintion, and that may change as the French are going back to monolculturalism. Marine Le Pen said that France’s Jews are just Frenchmen of a different religion.
Until the Algerian War, and a bit after, France would not take in Muslims. Algerian Jews but not Algerian Muslims were allowed French citizenship.
France is the way to do it; but it would involve changes that Israel is not ready to make.
Ruthless assimilation and intermarriage, with the goal of one culture, one state which is a state for all its citizens.
Are you ready to do that?
I think not.
This is why you have these difficulties. Halacha makes it hard to live among Gentiles without some friction.