4 ms·
Societal trust levels tend to correlate with cultural and racial homogeneity. The erosion of trust within Western civilization reflects this trend, particularly
by owlstuffing 1y ago
Societal trust levels tend to correlate with cultural and racial homogeneity. The erosion of trust within Western civilization reflects this trend, particularly in the United States following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act).
But this is hardly unique to the modern era. Consider ancient Rome: as the Empire expanded, it absorbed vast, culturally diverse populations. Over time, this growing diversity--combined with weak integration mechanisms--gradually strained social cohesion and undermined trust in institutions.
It’s a recurring pattern throughout human history.
- throwanem 1y agoIt's a recurring bullshit just-so story peddled by people who reject the complexity of actual history, which is why you provide no sources: you have learned Spengler and Hanania are unwelcome in polite society but not why, and there is no one else to whom you could turn. - well, Steve Sailer, I suppose.
- oivey 1y agoThat seems like a wildly questionable conclusion to draw. 60 years prior to that act, there was a huge influx of immigrants who would have been considered non-white at the time: Italians, the Irish, Germans, Eastern Europeans, etc. To the people of the time, that was a very non-homogenous period.
- owlstuffing 1y agoTrue, but there’s a key difference -- those earlier waves, despite being seen as "outsiders" at the time, still came from the same civilizational foundation. Europeans, whether Irish, Italains, Germans, or Poles, shared a common history shaped by Christianity, Greco-Roman influence, and broadly similar cultural norms. The friction was real, but over time, assimilation worked because there was enough cultural overlap to make it possible. The post-1965 immigration wave brought in people from entirely different civilizations -- with no shared history, values, or worldview. That isn’t just "non-homogeneity," it’s civilizational fragmentation. And unlike the 19th and early 20th century European immigration, there’s no historical precedent where that level of deep cultural divergence integrates at scale -- not in Rome, not in Byzantium, not anywhere.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- odux 1y agoI think there is something more than that. India is fairly homogeneous. Was high trust decades (5+) ago. Trust getting lower today. Similar practices (trusting a stranger with your child) would have been conceivable in the same timeframe as mailing kids but not today.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- odux 1y agoI think there is something more than that. India is fairly homogeneous. Was high trust decades (5+) ago. Trust getting lower today. Similar practices (trusting a stranger with your child) would have been conceivable in the same timeframe as mailing kids but not today. I think the other sister comment makes sense: protecting children had a very different definition back then than it is today.
- owlstuffing 1y agoIndeed, high trust requires more than homogeneity.
- teekert 1y agoMaybe it stops recurring when we realize we are all human. Will it take the discovery of an alien race to realize we are one? Savages.
- 8note 1y agothats not very convincing. you should also show that it wasnt say, inequality that killed the trust canada is a high trust society because of its ethnic diversity, and the competition between french and englisg culture. europe is in a much higher trust state as the EU than it ever was as a set of competing great powers. greece has plenty of homogeny, but is very low trust. keeping racists happy is probably pretty uncorrelated to trust, compared to say, government services rendered, and democratic participation.
- stavros 1y agoWait, how is Greece low trust? I'd for sure mail a baby.
- almosthere 1y agoI get what you're saying, but in Mexico the culture is fairly homogeneous but they have shit like this every other month: https://www.newsweek.com/students-found-dismembered-bodies-torture-mexico-oaxaca-2040427 https://www.newsweek.com/students-found-dismembered-bodies-t... I mean you don't even need to click on the link to see what it's about. I guess what I'm saying is that high trust societies come from societies that have severe consequences TBH.
- wat10000 1y agoCultural homogeneity I could see. But why would racial homogeneity have anything to do with it?
- owlstuffing 1y agoBecause history treats them as a package deal. Tokugawa Japan saw foreign faces as existential threats. The Ottomans built trust only within ethnic/religious silos (millets). Rome demanded a trinity of assimilation: Latin language, Roman customs, and worship of state gods (later emperor cults). Today's civic nationalism experiment rejects this link, yet no society has sustained high-trust diversity without such enforced unity. Rome threw everything at assimilation: shared language, values, identity above tribe, and state religion. It still fragmented. So Western nations face an unprecedented gamble: Can they maintain cohesion without these historical levers? History offers no successful precedents, only warnings.
- wat10000 1y agoIf Rome, which lasted two thousand years, doesn’t meet your bar, then your bar is too high.
- owlstuffing 1y agoThe Roman Empire lasted about two to three centuries in its unified form before it began to seriously fragment.
- wat10000 1y agoYou still had massive areas under unified control after that. Two to three centuries is nothing to sneeze at, either. What are you comparing to?
- 7952 1y agoOr maybe it is just familiarity. You could have a village where everyone knows everyone else and most people have never travelled more than ten miles from where they were born. Or a city of thousands. Of course one will be more trusting than the other because people trust the people they are familiar with. And understandably more isolated communities will have more unique culture. Culture and ultimately race are more a consequence than a cause.