By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, June 09, 2016
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.” In Hebrew, the “goyim” were all the
other non-Jewish nations and peoples. “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 comments:
Post a Comment