Moral Cowards!

[Katie88]

I'm not the one making specific claims about the ethnic makeup of imperial China over two thousand years.

Perhaps you should reread my post. My claim was about China today and over the last 60-70 years.

 

[Traitorfish]

Perhaps you should reread my post. My claim was about China today and over the last 60-70 years.

The quote you were responding to was specifically referring to pre-modern states. I assumed that was the context.

 

[Peuri]

I would agree with Akka more than Lexicus on this. If you think of the Roman empire, it surely was multicultural and at times pretty open to cultural influences, especially from the more developed east. But on the other hand, what kept the empire together, aside from the sandals of the legions, was an idea of roman citizenship. Now, you could become a roman, but if romanness was not the goal to strive for, I don't think the empire would have lasted as long as it did. In fact it was only after the center of the Roman empire moved outside of Rome itself, thereby diminishing the importance of romanness, that the empire in the end collapsed and local identities became more important. I mean if the Roman empire could have been kept together without the idea of romanness, why did the romans establish colonies of roman citizens on conquered lands? (Ok, to house the pleb mercenary legionaires, but surely that was not the only reason)

I would say it is pretty selfexplanatory to think that a community with an united narrative, be it citizenship, nationality (let's be honest, nationalistic states have been short lived, then again nationalism was born just a few centuries ago, so can we say our sample size is sufficient?), religion or an ideology of servitude would last longer. Now that narrative can be one of many things, but a narrative of belonging must exist, or else the state suffers from decentralising forces. You can just think of the american independence war. Why did the British loose? In the ens it was because the americans no longer felt that they were British. In fact they felt that they were in a sense purer than the Brits themselves, and that they had in the act of revolution reclaimed the ancient constitution of the anglo-saxons, that the Brits themselves had denied them.

 

[Katie88]

The quote you were responding to was specifically referring to pre-modern states. I assumed that was the context.

I read it as until now, but fair enough.

I'm not sure we can really get an accurate picture of the demographics over millennia, but the rest of my post explained why, in my view, such things aren't really relevant to modern states in any case.

 

[inthesomeday]

The Roman state, and every state since and before, is "held together" by the ability of those states to exercise force over their people. National identity is an illusion developed after the fact, that cannot exist without it.

 

[Lexicus]

Now, you could become a roman, but if romanness was not the goal to strive for,

Why was Rommanness a goal to strive for? Did people suddenly desire it for its own sake, or did the Romans engage in a specific and intentional project to incentivize it?

so can we say our sample size is sufficient?)

We of course can't. If you are under the impression that my position is that ethnic heterogeneity makes for longer-lived states, please lose that idea. I agree with Traitorfish in basically every particular on this question. Ethnic or national solidarity is only one of many things states may draw on to claim legitimacy. My post was merely meant to note that most states in history have not used nationalistic or "tribalistic" solidarity to claim legitimacy.

I read it as until now, but fair enough.

My claim re: China concerned Imperial China, which ended in 1911 with the fall of the Qing Dynasty.

The Roman state, and every state since and before, is "held together" by the ability of those states to exercise force over their people. National identity is an illusion developed after the fact, that cannot exist without it.

States that rely on naked force alone are quite rare in the historical record, actually.

 

[Peuri]

The Roman state, and every state since and before, is "held together" by the ability of those states to exercise force over their people. National identity is an illusion developed after the fact, that cannot exist without it.

I think you give the Roman empire too much credit if you say that. Sure it was powerful and sure it killed and enslaved, but by and large I would argue, as I tried in my post, to say that the Roman empire was kept together by the desire of peoples for the Roman empire to exist. Sure insurrections, like the jewish revolts, slave revolts and iberian revolts were bloodily suppressed, but you simply could not hold together an empire of that size with the communication and travelling technology of the times, if not a significant portions of local populations willing to belong to the empire.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would agree with Akka more than Lexicus on this. If you think of the Roman empire, it surely was multicultural and at times pretty open to cultural influences, especially from the more developed east. But on the other hand, what kept the empire together, aside from the sandals of the legions, was an idea of roman citizenship. Now, you could become a roman, but if romanness was not the goal to strive for, I don't think the empire would have lasted as long as it did. In fact it was only after the center of the Roman empire moved outside of Rome itself, thereby diminishing the importance of romanness, that the empire in the end collapsed and local identities became more important. I mean if the Roman empire could have been kept together without the idea of romanness, why did the romans establish colonies of roman citizens on conquered kans? (Ok, to house the olen mercenary legionaires, but surely that was not the only reason)

Is it wise to conflate elite civic identity with popular ethnic identity with? Elite Romans of the imperial period didn't necessarily imagine themselves as the sons of Romulus. They weren't even necessarily native Latin-speakers, or even, by the Byzantine period, fluent in Latin at all.

 

[Peuri]

Why was Rommanness a goal to strive for? Did people suddenly desire it for its own sake, or did the Romans engage in a specific and intentional project to incentivize it?



We of course can't. If you are under the impression that my position is that ethnic heterogeneity makes for longer-lived states, please lose that idea. I agree with Traitorfish in basically every particular on this question. Ethnic or national solidarity is only one of many things states may draw on to claim legitimacy. My post was merely meant to note that most states in history have not used nationalistic or "tribalistic" solidarity to claim legitimacy.

To my knowledge being a roman was a position of priviledge, one to be desired. Theoretically you would be adopted to one of the clans, so you could vote in the assemblies (for all that mattered to the plebs, which is to say not alot), you could marry a roman citizen, you would be judged by roman law, you could hold office, and I'm sure many other privileges of that kind. So it was kind of a club into which, if you got invited into, as a greek for example, or as a jew, you could hold your head above the rest of your miserable neighbours. So it became in your interests too for the Roman empire to continue existing.

On the last point. Then I misunderstood what you said, and on that point I would say I am in agreement with you.

 

[Peuri]

Is it wise to conflate elite civic identity with popular ethnic identity with? Elite Romans of the imperial period didn't necessarily imagine themselves as the sons of Romulus. They weren't even necessarily native Latin-speakers, or even, by the Byzantine period, fluent in Latin at all.

Good criticism. I apologise if I made it sound like every person living within the borders of the empire felt that they were romans first. That surely was not the case. I was just trying to say that without this sort of desire to be a part of the system, atleast by a significant portion of the population, the empire wouldn't have been able to keep together. Initially I tried to argue that plities need some sort of a narrative of belonging together in order to keep together. Citizenship being that for the Roman empire.
(As a side, I'm pretty sure according to legend Romulus had no sons. That's why kingship was not hereditary. But all that is just legend anyway.)

 

[Traitorfish]

Good criticism. I apologise if I made it sound like every person living within the borders of the empire felt that they were romans first. That surely was not the case. I was just trying to say that without this sort of desire to be a part of the system, atleast by a significant portion of the population, the empire wouldn't have been able to keep together. Initially I tried to argue that plities need some sort of a narrative of belonging together in order to keep together. Citizenship being that for the Roman empire.

That's reasonable. But, that's becoming increasingly distant from anything we can describe as a "tribal" identity". Nobody disagrees that shared identity is an important aspect of political stability, the question is what form these identities take, and what relationship they have to the formation of political communities.

 

[inthesomeday]

Nobody disagrees that shared identity is an important aspect of political stability,

I might disagree, I think that a lot of people who live in the US have never been invited into the American identity, which is heavily based on race. I would argue that a hierarchy of applied cultural identities have been more historically useful in maintaining political stability throughout history.

The old European colonial empires benefited greatly by a stratification of identities based not only on ethnicity but also on geography.

Basically just class, different classes of people have never managed to be categorized with one identity and obviously a sturdy class structure is vital to the integrity of the state

 

[Lexicus]

Importantly, identity is multifaceted. People are not just one identity, they have different identities in different contexts. And in that vein...

I might disagree, I think that a lot of people who live in the US have never been invited into the American identity, which is heavily based on race. I would argue that a hierarchy of applied cultural identities have been more historically useful in maintaining political stability throughout history.

The old European colonial empires benefited greatly by a stratification of identities based not only on ethnicity but also on geography.

Basically just class, different classes of people have never managed to be categorized with one identity and obviously a sturdy class structure is vital to the integrity of the state

Hierarchies of identity exist at the same time as a shared identity that transcends hierarchical difference. And which one dominates is contingent on a bunch of other factors. One of which, as we have all noted, is state action.

"Humans are tribal by nature" and similar statements are just truisms, they don't actually explain anything.

 

[inthesomeday]

Right, but what I'm saying is that I straight up think an American identity doesn't exist, I think there are several competing American identities mostly based on race. There is an "American identity" for the white people, and various subordinate identities for each of the imaginary racial groups in the country, each distinct and hierarchically organized.

 

[Ryika]

And that's why America is not a politically stable country.
There's only one final solution to the race question.
Gas the idea of race, and create a colorblind society!

 

[Lexicus]

I think we are starting to move away from automatic, unthinking, white-as-default. And the current political moment is partially a reaction to that trend.

 

[inthesomeday]

America is more politically stable than almost any other country in the world because its system is designed so brilliantly that the average citizen has next to no chance of consciousness. It's almost airtight.

 

[Traitorfish]

America is more politically stable than almost any other country in the world because its system is designed so brilliantly that the average citizen has next to no chance of consciousness. It's almost airtight.

No sober person could look at the American system and use the word "designed".

 

[inthesomeday]

No sober person could look at the American system and use the word "designed".

I think I read somewhere once that, because clean water was so hard to come by back in the day, everybody just drank beer as the sort of staple drink, and so the founders were probably drunk when they established the Constitution. Don't know how true this is but it might make more sense in some ways.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think I read somewhere once that, because clean water was so hard to come by back in the day, everybody just drank beer as the sort of staple drink, and so the founders were probably drunk when they established the Constitution. Don't know how true this is but it might make more sense in some ways.

Beer was a staple beverage in that period, but it was mostly low-alcohol "small beer" of less than 2% abv, typically around 0.8% abv, and even if they were really putting it away, it's unlikely that this would have gotten the attendees at the constitutional convention anything more than very lightly buzzed.

No, they were drunk because of the whisky.