Superpower of the Human Race: Could America losing its Western identity give it a strategic edge?

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,538
#41
You don't see how my point is valid because, to put it bluntly, you don't appear to have a great understanding of history.

The Roman expansion began against the Etruscan city states, not Gaul. In both cases, Etruscan and Gallic people were brought into all spectrums of Roman society, including the military and Senate class. The period of rapid progress in the Roman Empire was largely a result of incorporating foreign culture and technology. They were one of the most multi-cultural Empires the world had ever seen; perhaps only exceeded by the Arabic Empire I also mentioned.
I have no idea how not conquering Scotland or the Sahara are relevant to anything, you'll have to explain that one further.

The US "Golden Age" - as you call it - had nothing to do with xenophobia, and everything to do with the rise of social welfare policy under FDR to revitalize the working class. In fact, quite the opposite trends were occurring: the downfall of segregation, a rapid expansion of immigration, the incorporation of minorities into the working class, and the opening up of the US into partnerships with nations around the world; in part, to fight AGAINST the xenophobic powers in the very war you mentioned. There was temporary Xenophobia against Japanese, but this is largely explained by the fact that the US was at war with Japan, and the actions were largely seen as embarrassing and regretful - held as an example of something the US did wrong in that time period.


Before gauls were, per your words, "brought in" they were slaughtered and enslaved en masse... Julius boasted about killing a million of them and enslaving as many, considerable numbers in those days..... This did not seem to phaze the roman elite at all...
As for the great roman tolerance you may ask the jews and others (delenda est Carthago!) who were victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing.... The romans were not so accepting of differences, but they would accept those who "romanized" on their terms

Temporary xenophobia in the US against the japanese ? Only ? that conveniently forgets the mexicans (who were ethnically cleansed including during the first FDR presidency), the latin americans in general, the chinese and of course african americans and indians to name just a few... There was nothing temporary about that, it lasted for the most part of the US existence.... Who are we kidding here ?
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,822
#42
Before gauls were, per your words, "brought in" they were slaughtered and enslaved en masse... Julius boasted about killing a million of them and enslaving as many, considerable numbers in those days..... This did not seem to phaze the roman elite at all...
As for the great roman tolerance you may ask the jews and others (delenda est Carthago!) who were victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing.... The romans were not so accepting of differences, but they would accept those who "romanized" on their terms

Temporary xenophobia in the US against the japanese ? Only ? that conveniently forgets the mexicans (who were ethnically cleansed including during the first FDR presidency), the latin americans in general, the chinese and of course african americans and indians to name just a few... There was nothing temporary about that, it lasted for the most part of the US existence.... Who are we kidding here ?
Julius Caesar was at war with the Gauls. Julius Caesar ALSO brought them into Roman society, which wouldn't have occurred if his motivations were xenophobia.

All those people you mentioned in the US were brought into the work force during this time. Where are you getting this ethnic cleansing by FDR thing from?
 
Oct 2013
14,438
Europix
#43
I think You've started with a false premisses:
More and more we are seeing an United States transformed from a continuation of European identity to one of a more global multiethnic nation. European Americans even without immigration will become will no longer make up 50% of the nation.
US as appeared as an opposing model to the European one's, the European immigrants were "misfitted"/"rejected"/"unwanted" in the European societies.

Simply because the initial immigrants were mainly originary from Europe, that the lingua franca was an European language (English) didn't made US a continuation of European Identity. And what's that, to begin with: English? Greek? Russian?

Personally, I think we can say that very quickly, US had forged it's own identity, that wasn't in any way a continuation of European Identity.
 
Aug 2014
277
New York, USA
#44
Can America giving up its Western identity give it a strategic edge? This is a complete transformation away from the idea of the "West".
What does this mean? Does it mean moving away from Western philosophy of democracy, rule of law, capitalism, freedom/tolerance, and human rights?
Certainly, these are the values that more or less define "Western" countries nowadays.
 
Likes: Futurist
Aug 2014
277
New York, USA
#46
I think that he means in terms of demographics.
Demographically, the majority of the US does not come from Western Europe already... unless you count light skinned Latinos from Mexico as part of "Western Europe"...
Greeks, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, 2nd-gen white Latinos, and even Middle Easterners are part of the "whites" in the US according to the census. None of those ethnic groups come from Western Europe.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,128
SoCal
#47
Demographically, the majority of the US does not come from Western Europe already... unless you count light skinned Latinos from Mexico as part of "Western Europe"...
Greeks, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, 2nd-gen white Latinos, and even Middle Easterners are part of the "whites" in the US according to the census. None of those ethnic groups come from Western Europe.
Yeah, the US appears to have been more Western European before 1880 or so.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,538
#48
Julius Caesar was at war with the Gauls. Julius Caesar ALSO brought them into Roman society, which wouldn't have occurred if his motivations were xenophobia.

All those people you mentioned in the US were brought into the work force during this time. Where are you getting this ethnic cleansing by FDR thing from?
And why was he at war ? because Rome was so tolerant ? and why were 1 million enslaved ? Also you confuse bringing a few native elites into the roman elites with bringing a whole society (unless of course your idea is that taking a million slaves is bringing gauls into roman society)

As for the mexicans that were "brought into the workforce" (and why did "those people" need to be "brought into the workforce" if america was so tolerant in the first place)

Mexican Repatriation - Wikipedia

The Mexican Repatriation was a mass deportation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans from the United States between 1929 and 1936. Estimates of how many were repatriated range from 400,000 to 2,000,000. An estimated sixty percent of those deported were birthright citizens of the United States.Because the forced movement was based on race, and ignored citizenship, the process meets modern legal definitions of ethnic cleansing
 
Jun 2012
7,384
Malaysia
#49
I am still not seeing any examples of long term succesful diverse empires here... Since you are currently in China you know that China was built by trying to erase diversity wherever possible (which it still does, with Tibet and the Ouighours)... On a smaller scale, so was France....
France was built on the eradication of diversity? But that just does not gel with what has been happening on the ground at all. Ever since Roman times, at the very least, by my observation. Quite likely even much earlier.

And even today, I tend to see France as the most diversity-tolerant nation in Europe. Or at least Western Europe. If we overlook the attitudes of a very small quite likely unrepresentative section of the population.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,128
SoCal
#50
France was built on on the eradication of diversity? But that just does not gel with what has been happening on the ground. Ever since Roman times, at the very least, by my observation.

And even today, I tend to see France as the most diversity-tolerant nation in Europe. Or at least Western Europe.
France did try eradicating its various patois as well as the Occitan language in the 19th and 20th centuries--something that it largely succeeded in doing.
 
Likes: tomar

Similar History Discussions