5 ms·

Since the late 300s there was a repeating pattern where German tribes would want to become part of Rome (initially, fleeing the Huns), and the Romans would resp

Since the late 300s there was a repeating pattern where German tribes would want to become part of Rome (initially, fleeing the Huns), and the Romans would respond with acts of astonishing racism. The first revolt of 376 began when the Romans reneged on land grants to the Goths (who were refugees from the Huns) and allowed them to starve. The proximal cause of its fall were anti-German riots in the Roman capital, where the wives and children of the German troops were massacred; leading the Gothic leader Alaric's troops to openly revolt where they were previously loyal to Rome. So the fall of Rome has a lesson about the treatment and acceptance of foreigners, but maybe not the one you had in mind.

MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
Another way to look at it: anti-german riots errupted because politicians ignored the public's disdain for immigration, causing the goths to rebel. I still have the 90's headlines of burning refugee homes in my mind. After the german unification, the east was economically devastated. People had lost their jobs and their national identity, and things were bleak for years to come. So they turned to right-wing ideas, being Nazi was cool for a while. Plus, they had no every day experience with strangers - the iron curtain made sure of that. Now you could say that these people were a bunch of facist idiots, and some of them certainly were. But you could also say that it was very irresponsible of politicians to build refugee homes in these areas into this political climate. The reality is that humans are less willing to share if they feel threatened already and are in bad situation themselves.
- sspiff 11y ago
  Most people are unwilling to share even if they have it good. Much of Western Europe today is fairly wealthy, yet we're unwilling to accept refugees.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Being wealthy and not feeling threatened is two distinct things. You can have one, none, or both. You can easily persuade people who feel safe to share in order to create safety net. When you can't, this means you have a problem with safety which you should be solving instead of blaming people.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    Nope. Look at europe, walk through any major city, be it London, Geneva, Paris, Stockholm etc. You will see huge amounts of immigrants, some naturalized already, some not there yet but trying. You'll find only few places so open to migrants in this world, we are doing our part of sharing, continuously. But this is not the way world can be fixed in long term. What is of of main issues now (at least to me & people around me) is (potential) pace of immigration and its potential to grow exponentially - we don't have endless space to absorb as many economical migrants as there are/might be. Our economies are not in super good shape, unemployment is bad in many places (or outright horriblein southern parts, 50% unemployment of youth has/will have devastating effect on future shape of these economies). If they could financially and there would be +- guarantee of success, half of Africa (say 300 million) and massive amounts of Asia would stand up and try to come here, leaving their dysfunctional home countries. And we all know that there are some really bad places to be born to. For example, many many young people from North Africa, ie Morocco are trying this either via boats or turkey/greece border for many years already. If somebody takes few 1000s kms journey through 10 different sovereign, stable and peaceful states and decides to end up in say Germany, he is not refugee fleeing for his life - that status ends after he willingly leaves first safe country. I don't blame them, I would do the same if I had the option, but let's call things with proper names. And there are some limits for economical migrants of how much our societies can/are willing to absorb. Another topic is a major failure of immigrants to integrate in the past and accept european values (there is plenty of exceptions, but they are what they are, exceptions). But that's a topic on its own, and highly controversial one. I am for example economical migrant myself, albeit only within europe (Slovakia -> Switzerland). First thing I did is to accept all the rules of my new country, don't expect that world will bend for my needs and expectations, and just be part of society, learn the language, etc. I am still amazed how Swiss are tolerant when their tiny country is overrun by foreigners.
  - seivan 11y ago
    I mean you could be right, everything is relative. But what are you comparing to? Japan? Qatar? Saudi? Immigrants aren't homogenous, so the opposition isn't either.
  - NoCulturalFit 11y ago
    Not sure if the concept of Hirja existed during Rome, but you might want to look into it. I don't want to live near islamists and my mother doesn't want to be called a whore in arabic for not wearing hijab - yeah my mum speaks Arabic. You can't refrain from the fact that majority of the refugees are islamists in a sense that they deem apostasy as a crime and homosexuality punishable by death.
    - cynicalkane 11y ago
      > You can't refrain from the fact that majority of the refugees are islamists in a sense that they deem apostasy as a crime and homosexuality punishable by death. I am 97% sure you completely made up that statistic.
      - NoCulturalFit 11y ago
        http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... I am pretty sure you need to read up. I grew up in a muslim ghetto. My parents were both born in muslim countries. As a math guy I am sure you can figure out that any percentage of 1.6 billion sure is a large chunk of people.
  - eimai134 11y ago
    Western Europe is about the only place that's accepting refugees. Where do you think the top places that are accepting refugees are?
mc32 11y ago
But didn't pluralistic and non pluralistic empires come and go back then? Did pluralism or non pluralism actually make a difference in the decline of empires? If anything the Chinese who were ruthless in rule were able to keep things going the longest.
- qiqing 11y ago
  China was also very open to immigration and inclusive in what counted as "Chinese."
  - mc32 11y ago
    So that's how they're down to only 95 percent Han having driven the Hmong, Turkiks and many others out? As I understand it they barely tolerate the Manchurians.
    - qiqing 11y ago
      FWIW, I'm 1/8 Manchurian even though my birth certificate says "Han" and the Qing Dynasty, which ended in 1911, was ruled by Manchurians. China was the only nation that welcomed refugees fleeing from pogroms in one era and fleeing concentration camps in another era, when nations like the U.S. would not let those ships dock. It's just unfortunate that the U.S. tends to be rather selective in what gets taught in schools. Side note: you can tell something about the inclusivity of a culture by how children of mixed race are treated and labelled by the broader society. Historically, if you're part-Han (a term which originated from the Han Dynasty to be an inclusive term that described all the diverse people from the diverse nations that comprised it), then you're Han (part of the mainstream, dominant culture). Historically, in the U.S., children of mixed race get categorized with the less-mainstream less-dominant minority culture, with all the lack of privilege that accompany that. This sort of edge case may seem minor to those who don't live it, but as an edge case myself, I feel that it's indicative of how the dominant culture views me.
      - mc32 11y ago
        It is problematic that in the US people are too absolute in some things. In this case black and white. Even if someone is mostly white, say 3/4, they're considered black by both whites and blacks, for the most part. But interestingly in Brazil and other places where there are more shades of either, still people suffer the same or more injustice due to race compared to the U.S.
acqq 11y ago
"Maybe" also it doesn't mean anything: From the absence of X during the fall of an empire it doesn't follow that the presence of X will protect from the fall of another empire. The set of such X where X is not in the set of the policies of the fallen empire is infinite.

MrBuddyCasino 11y ago

Another way to look at it: anti-german riots errupted because politicians ignored the public's disdain for immigration, causing the goths to rebel. I still have the 90's headlines of burning refugee homes in my mind. After the german unification, the east was economically devastated. People had lost their jobs and their national identity, and things were bleak for years to come. So they turned to right-wing ideas, being Nazi was cool for a while. Plus, they had no every day experience with strangers - the iron curtain made sure of that. Now you could say that these people were a bunch of facist idiots, and some of them certainly were. But you could also say that it was very irresponsible of politicians to build refugee homes in these areas into this political climate. The reality is that humans are less willing to share if they feel threatened already and are in bad situation themselves.

sspiff 11y ago
Most people are unwilling to share even if they have it good. Much of Western Europe today is fairly wealthy, yet we're unwilling to accept refugees.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Being wealthy and not feeling threatened is two distinct things. You can have one, none, or both. You can easily persuade people who feel safe to share in order to create safety net. When you can't, this means you have a problem with safety which you should be solving instead of blaming people.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  Nope. Look at europe, walk through any major city, be it London, Geneva, Paris, Stockholm etc. You will see huge amounts of immigrants, some naturalized already, some not there yet but trying. You'll find only few places so open to migrants in this world, we are doing our part of sharing, continuously. But this is not the way world can be fixed in long term. What is of of main issues now (at least to me & people around me) is (potential) pace of immigration and its potential to grow exponentially - we don't have endless space to absorb as many economical migrants as there are/might be. Our economies are not in super good shape, unemployment is bad in many places (or outright horriblein southern parts, 50% unemployment of youth has/will have devastating effect on future shape of these economies). If they could financially and there would be +- guarantee of success, half of Africa (say 300 million) and massive amounts of Asia would stand up and try to come here, leaving their dysfunctional home countries. And we all know that there are some really bad places to be born to. For example, many many young people from North Africa, ie Morocco are trying this either via boats or turkey/greece border for many years already. If somebody takes few 1000s kms journey through 10 different sovereign, stable and peaceful states and decides to end up in say Germany, he is not refugee fleeing for his life - that status ends after he willingly leaves first safe country. I don't blame them, I would do the same if I had the option, but let's call things with proper names. And there are some limits for economical migrants of how much our societies can/are willing to absorb. Another topic is a major failure of immigrants to integrate in the past and accept european values (there is plenty of exceptions, but they are what they are, exceptions). But that's a topic on its own, and highly controversial one. I am for example economical migrant myself, albeit only within europe (Slovakia -> Switzerland). First thing I did is to accept all the rules of my new country, don't expect that world will bend for my needs and expectations, and just be part of society, learn the language, etc. I am still amazed how Swiss are tolerant when their tiny country is overrun by foreigners.
- seivan 11y ago
  I mean you could be right, everything is relative. But what are you comparing to? Japan? Qatar? Saudi? Immigrants aren't homogenous, so the opposition isn't either.
- NoCulturalFit 11y ago
  Not sure if the concept of Hirja existed during Rome, but you might want to look into it. I don't want to live near islamists and my mother doesn't want to be called a whore in arabic for not wearing hijab - yeah my mum speaks Arabic. You can't refrain from the fact that majority of the refugees are islamists in a sense that they deem apostasy as a crime and homosexuality punishable by death.
  - cynicalkane 11y ago
    > You can't refrain from the fact that majority of the refugees are islamists in a sense that they deem apostasy as a crime and homosexuality punishable by death. I am 97% sure you completely made up that statistic.
    - NoCulturalFit 11y ago
      http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... I am pretty sure you need to read up. I grew up in a muslim ghetto. My parents were both born in muslim countries. As a math guy I am sure you can figure out that any percentage of 1.6 billion sure is a large chunk of people.
- eimai134 11y ago
  Western Europe is about the only place that's accepting refugees. Where do you think the top places that are accepting refugees are?

mc32 11y ago

But didn't pluralistic and non pluralistic empires come and go back then? Did pluralism or non pluralism actually make a difference in the decline of empires? If anything the Chinese who were ruthless in rule were able to keep things going the longest.

qiqing 11y ago
China was also very open to immigration and inclusive in what counted as "Chinese."
- mc32 11y ago
  So that's how they're down to only 95 percent Han having driven the Hmong, Turkiks and many others out? As I understand it they barely tolerate the Manchurians.
  - qiqing 11y ago
    FWIW, I'm 1/8 Manchurian even though my birth certificate says "Han" and the Qing Dynasty, which ended in 1911, was ruled by Manchurians. China was the only nation that welcomed refugees fleeing from pogroms in one era and fleeing concentration camps in another era, when nations like the U.S. would not let those ships dock. It's just unfortunate that the U.S. tends to be rather selective in what gets taught in schools. Side note: you can tell something about the inclusivity of a culture by how children of mixed race are treated and labelled by the broader society. Historically, if you're part-Han (a term which originated from the Han Dynasty to be an inclusive term that described all the diverse people from the diverse nations that comprised it), then you're Han (part of the mainstream, dominant culture). Historically, in the U.S., children of mixed race get categorized with the less-mainstream less-dominant minority culture, with all the lack of privilege that accompany that. This sort of edge case may seem minor to those who don't live it, but as an edge case myself, I feel that it's indicative of how the dominant culture views me.
    - mc32 11y ago
      It is problematic that in the US people are too absolute in some things. In this case black and white. Even if someone is mostly white, say 3/4, they're considered black by both whites and blacks, for the most part. But interestingly in Brazil and other places where there are more shades of either, still people suffer the same or more injustice due to race compared to the U.S.

acqq 11y ago

"Maybe" also it doesn't mean anything: From the absence of X during the fall of an empire it doesn't follow that the presence of X will protect from the fall of another empire. The set of such X where X is not in the set of the policies of the fallen empire is infinite.