[EyeBrock]

It's happened in most countries.

England's many tribes were conquered by the Romans who ruled with an iron fist for 500 years. When they left it became a load on mini-kingdoms until the kings of Wessex killed off their competitors and 'united' most of England.

Then the Normans and took over, conquered the Sheep-shaggers and the Jocks were conned into joining us a few centuries later and the Irish were just trodden on by the English and Jocks.

It's standard stuff. Peace through superior fire-power and all that.

[ShepherdsDog]

Pax Romana was a good thing. There were plenty of regions and kingdoms that welcomed the Roman legions and the roads they built Roman law and order was preferable to their previous state.

[EyeBrock]

I dunno, we Celts were quite happy until the bloody Romans came. Bringing wine, law and order, education, clean water etc.

It was way better to eat dirt as a free Celt serf serving a Celtic robber-baron....

Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose....'

[ShepherdsDog]

You Irish Gaels still haven't changed. Then again the Romanization of the southern Britons turned them into pansies and made it easier for the German Boat People to herd them all into Wales..

[Demian_164]

You wrote, "multi-ethnic states do nothing but disentegrate. look at any empire in human history. soviet union, balkans, austria hungary etc etc etc etc. it almost always ends in bloodshed (as it did with the jews in europe)" in the context of this thread. How about we dumb it down a bit - why did Austria-Hungary disintegrate? Unless it was primarily due to multiple ethnic groups, why did you include it?!? The same applies to the USSR. And if it's merely a coincidence that they happened to be a multi-ethnic state AND collapsed, then you offered up bad illustrations.[/quote]

the thread started with the idea that multi-cultural society has failed. i then offerd the point that multicultural societies will fail and it is only natural for them to do so. my point is, as eyebrock and sheperds dog have also pointed out, that multi-ethnic socities are not natural in human history, the only exist when forced upon people from above. this can imclude mass immigration, or an empire of one group dominating the other etc. once this power is lost, these societies tend to disentegrate. when austria hungary was divided up...how was it divided? into economic areas? or along its ethnic boundaries?

the soviet union is a no brainer. obviously it was because of ecnomic reasons. but once the communists lost the power, it fell apart. people of different ethnicities declared independence because they wanted to govern and rule themselves.

so i will say it again, multiculturalism is not natural. humans are tribal and tend to stick to their own kind

[EyeBrock]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

You Irish Gaels still haven't changed. Then again the Romanization of the southern Britons turned them into pansies and made it easier for the German Boat People to herd them all into Wales..

I agree. Anywhere south of Lancashire is France. Bunch of souhern jessies.

[Mustang1]

Demian_164 Demian_164:

the thread started with the idea that multi-cultural society has failed. i then offerd the point that multicultural societies will fail and it is only natural for them to do so. my point is, as eyebrock and sheperds dog have also pointed out, that multi-ethnic socities are not natural in human history, the only exist when forced upon people from above. this can imclude mass immigration, or an empire of one group dominating the other etc. once this power is lost, these societies tend to disentegrate. when austria hungary was divided up...how was it divided? into economic areas? or along its ethnic boundaries?

the soviet union is a no brainer. obviously it was because of ecnomic reasons. but once the communists lost the power, it fell apart. people of different ethnicities declared independence because they wanted to govern and rule themselves.

so i will say it again, multiculturalism is not natural. humans are tribal and tend to stick to their own kind

So, you're abandoning your little attempt at history with Austria-Hungary? Thought so, 'cause you're wrong.

And your point that multicultural societies fail because, or due to, multi-ethnic pressure simply isn't valid. It can, in some instances, be a factor but it isn't a sole one, generally, nor does it eclipse, as Tainter put it, other pressures.

Civilization's maintenance and growth demand increasingly complex and costly investments of time and energy (economic and labour).The development of civilization is seen as an extreme case of a process of deviation amplification - as civilization progresses it requires a increasingly greater investment in political and social development. As these complex social, political, military and economic structures are established, a further increasingly amount of time and energy are needed merely to maintain the already existing levels(even more if growth is involved!).

Eventually, returns on this human investment diminish and the centre collapse under its own weight. The larger and larger demands (food, manufactured goods) simply outstrip the abilities of the civilization and decline sets in or collapse occurs. The centre gives way to the periphery and the cycle begins again.

So, evidently multi-ethnic civilizations do not inherently fail, generally, due to only that single element.

[Demian_164]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Demian_164 Demian_164:

the thread started with the idea that multi-cultural society has failed. i then offerd the point that multicultural societies will fail and it is only natural for them to do so. my point is, as eyebrock and sheperds dog have also pointed out, that multi-ethnic socities are not natural in human history, the only exist when forced upon people from above. this can imclude mass immigration, or an empire of one group dominating the other etc. once this power is lost, these societies tend to disentegrate. when austria hungary was divided up...how was it divided? into economic areas? or along its ethnic boundaries?

the soviet union is a no brainer. obviously it was because of ecnomic reasons. but once the communists lost the power, it fell apart. people of different ethnicities declared independence because they wanted to govern and rule themselves.

so i will say it again, multiculturalism is not natural. humans are tribal and tend to stick to their own kind

So, you're abandoning your little attempt at history with Austria-Hungary? Thought so, 'cause you're wrong.

And your point that multicultural societies fail because, or due to, multi-ethnic pressure simply isn't valid. It can, in some instances, be a factor but it isn't a sole one, generally, nor does it eclipse, as Tainter put it, other pressures.

Civilization's maintenance and growth demand increasingly complex and costly investments of time and energy (economic and labour).The development of civilization is seen as an extreme case of a process of deviation amplification - as civilization progresses it requires a increasingly greater investment in political and social development. As these complex social, political, military and economic structures are established, a further increasingly amount of time and energy are needed merely to maintain the already existing levels(even more if growth is involved!).

Eventually, returns on this human investment diminish and the centre collapse under its own weight. The larger and larger demands (food, manufactured goods) simply outstrip the abilities of the civilization and decline sets in or collapse occurs. The centre gives way to the periphery and the cycle begins again.

So, evidently multi-ethnic civilizations do not inherently fail, generally, due to only that single element.

if your done pontificating, you can now begin addressing something that i actually wrote. if not, you dont need to tell me im wrong. i never wrote societies fail "due to only that single element". i NEVER said that. obviously, many different societies collapse and decline for a variety of reasons. i'll ask again, was austria divided along ethnic lines? did its separate groups seek independence? was it held together by a powerful state apparatus or the natural will of each ethnic group? how was austria hungary formed? by people deciding multi-culturalism was a good thing? you should look into what it was that i was criticizing instead of picking out a few words, taking them out of context, adding your own meaning to them and then critiquing them. none of the crap you just wrote has anything to do with multiculturalism...so you may be in the wrong thread?

[sandorski]

Demian_164 Demian_164:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Demian_164 Demian_164:

the thread started with the idea that multi-cultural society has failed. i then offerd the point that multicultural societies will fail and it is only natural for them to do so. my point is, as eyebrock and sheperds dog have also pointed out, that multi-ethnic socities are not natural in human history, the only exist when forced upon people from above. this can imclude mass immigration, or an empire of one group dominating the other etc. once this power is lost, these societies tend to disentegrate. when austria hungary was divided up...how was it divided? into economic areas? or along its ethnic boundaries?

the soviet union is a no brainer. obviously it was because of ecnomic reasons. but once the communists lost the power, it fell apart. people of different ethnicities declared independence because they wanted to govern and rule themselves.

so i will say it again, multiculturalism is not natural. humans are tribal and tend to stick to their own kind

So, you're abandoning your little attempt at history with Austria-Hungary? Thought so, 'cause you're wrong.

And your point that multicultural societies fail because, or due to, multi-ethnic pressure simply isn't valid. It can, in some instances, be a factor but it isn't a sole one, generally, nor does it eclipse, as Tainter put it, other pressures.

Civilization's maintenance and growth demand increasingly complex and costly investments of time and energy (economic and labour).The development of civilization is seen as an extreme case of a process of deviation amplification - as civilization progresses it requires a increasingly greater investment in political and social development. As these complex social, political, military and economic structures are established, a further increasingly amount of time and energy are needed merely to maintain the already existing levels(even more if growth is involved!).

Eventually, returns on this human investment diminish and the centre collapse under its own weight. The larger and larger demands (food, manufactured goods) simply outstrip the abilities of the civilization and decline sets in or collapse occurs. The centre gives way to the periphery and the cycle begins again.

So, evidently multi-ethnic civilizations do not inherently fail, generally, due to only that single element.

if your done pontificating, you can now begin addressing something that i actually wrote. if not, you dont need to tell me im wrong. i never wrote societies fail "due to only that single element". i NEVER said that. obviously, many different societies collapse and decline for a variety of reasons. i'll ask again, was austria divided along ethnic lines? did its separate groups seek independence? was it held together by a powerful state apparatus or the natural will of each ethnic group? how was austria hungary formed? by people deciding multi-culturalism was a good thing? you should look into what it was that i was criticizing instead of picking out a few words, taking them out of context, adding your own meaning to them and then critiquing them. none of the crap you just wrote has anything to do with multiculturalism...so you may be in the wrong thread?

All societies fail, some are Multicultural. You're trying to make a point where none exists.

[Mustang1]

Demian_164 Demian_164:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Demian_164 Demian_164:

the thread started with the idea that multi-cultural society has failed. i then offerd the point that multicultural societies will fail and it is only natural for them to do so. my point is, as eyebrock and sheperds dog have also pointed out, that multi-ethnic socities are not natural in human history, the only exist when forced upon people from above. this can imclude mass immigration, or an empire of one group dominating the other etc. once this power is lost, these societies tend to disentegrate. when austria hungary was divided up...how was it divided? into economic areas? or along its ethnic boundaries?

the soviet union is a no brainer. obviously it was because of ecnomic reasons. but once the communists lost the power, it fell apart. people of different ethnicities declared independence because they wanted to govern and rule themselves.

so i will say it again, multiculturalism is not natural. humans are tribal and tend to stick to their own kind

So, you're abandoning your little attempt at history with Austria-Hungary? Thought so, 'cause you're wrong.

And your point that multicultural societies fail because, or due to, multi-ethnic pressure simply isn't valid. It can, in some instances, be a factor but it isn't a sole one, generally, nor does it eclipse, as Tainter put it, other pressures.

Civilization's maintenance and growth demand increasingly complex and costly investments of time and energy (economic and labour).The development of civilization is seen as an extreme case of a process of deviation amplification - as civilization progresses it requires a increasingly greater investment in political and social development. As these complex social, political, military and economic structures are established, a further increasingly amount of time and energy are needed merely to maintain the already existing levels(even more if growth is involved!).

Eventually, returns on this human investment diminish and the centre collapse under its own weight. The larger and larger demands (food, manufactured goods) simply outstrip the abilities of the civilization and decline sets in or collapse occurs. The centre gives way to the periphery and the cycle begins again.

So, evidently multi-ethnic civilizations do not inherently fail, generally, due to only that single element.

if your done pontificating, you can now begin addressing something that i actually wrote. if not, you dont need to tell me im wrong. i never wrote societies fail "due to only that single element". i NEVER said that. obviously, many different societies collapse and decline for a variety of reasons. i'll ask again, was austria divided along ethnic lines? did its separate groups seek independence? was it held together by a powerful state apparatus or the natural will of each ethnic group? how was austria hungary formed? by people deciding multi-culturalism was a good thing? you should look into what it was that i was criticizing instead of picking out a few words, taking them out of context, adding your own meaning to them and then critiquing them. none of the crap you just wrote has anything to do with multiculturalism...so you may be in the wrong thread?

You're wrong. This is hardly new for you. You waded into a topic way beyond your knowledge level and got called on it. You had nothing for rebuttal. I didn't take anything out of context, i merely kicked back your rather amateurish fluff. Don't like it? I don't care.

Now all you're doing is trying to obfuscate your utter lack of knowledge with empty minutia and excuses. It's transparent and hedging your original misstep is sad and desperate.

As a CKA philosopher once remarked - you fail.

[Mustang1]

sandorski sandorski:

All societies fail, some are Multicultural. You're trying to make a point where none exists.

He's just making a bad point, period.