Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology, Thoughts on Economics > The Non-Existent Linkage of Ethnic Homogeneity and Positive Social Stability

The Non-Existent Linkage of Ethnic Homogeneity and Positive Social Stability

People of a limited intellectual capacity, aka CONservatives, like to believe in a number of solipsistic myths. One of them is the rather bizarre belief that ethnic homogeneity is the key to prosperity, peace and stability. Let me begin with a simple question-

Where is the historical evidence linking ethnic homogeneity to prosperity, peace or any other form of positive stability?

As I have repeatedly said, in many of my previous posts, civilization has a rather poor record of improving the living standards of most human beings. I cannot think of any era, except the last 60-odd years, when the living standard of the median person in any civilization exceeded that of nomadic hunter gatherers. Feel free to point out evidence that this was not the case.

However the majority of ‘nations’ that ever existed was functionally mono-ethnic and the few poly-ethnic ‘nations’ in history, such as the roman or mongol empire, were exceptions rather than the rule. So why were mono-ethnic ‘nations’ from ancient Egyptian kingdoms to Victorian England unable to provide widespread prosperity, peace and stability for the median person. Can you seriously say that all of the shit, dirt and poverty in Victorian England was due to “darkies”? How was present day Australia populated? What about the extreme poverty in pre-20th century Scandinavia? Ever wonder why there are so many people of Swedish descent in Minnesota? and why did people with almost identical ancestries keep on fighting wars which killed millions of people? What part of the problems in Russia (post-1917 civil war, Stalin’s genocides, WW2) during the last 100 years was due by ethnic non-homogeneity? What part of the deaths and misery caused by Mao`s cultural revolution was due to ethnic non-homogeneity?

What percentage of the serious problems, wars, genocides and other forms of extreme misery faced by western ‘nations’ in the past few hundred years were due by ethnic non-homogeneity?

What do you think? Comments?

  1. skepoet
    May 23, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    I am not generally in this camp as to social problems being related to ethnic heterogeneity, but there is the easy correlation that stable societies in the current: Japan, South Korea, and Northern Europe are fairly homogeneous. The problem may be the causal links instead of correlative ones. Or it may be deeper than that. However, even similar societies who are an ethnic group: they are largely dependent on some sort of false unifying origin myth. For example: the koreans and the Japanese both have myths about being one race, but there is no genetic evidence for this even if they are more genetically homogeneous than anywhere else. However, we should point out that all the stable homogeneous places are also dying because they don’t reproduce enough to maintain selves and eventually have to open up to outsiders. So that argument as a social arrangement seems self-defeating.

    Yes, It is all about a unifying myth. Until that myth is accepted by the majority, so-called homogenous societies are no better than heterogeneous ones.

    PS: Aren’t north and south koreans one ‘people’? How is that working out?

    • May 23, 2012 at 11:24 pm

      North Coreans and South Coreans are two peoples who belong to one people: the Coreans.
      The separation of one people into two branches does not indicate anything about each tribe’s situation.

      • skepoet
        May 27, 2012 at 2:21 am

        One, I wasn’t referring to the north/south split, but the fact that the koreans were originally multiple tribes who formed three kingdoms and spoke related dialectics of an urgic langauge related to Manchurian. So if one is going to back, it helps not to read the modern world and tribal situation to the past, two, most of traditional Korean culture is modern in the grand sense, it was largely created in the joseon and accelerated in early imperial reforms. This is not true for all elements, but for quite a few.

        So I am aware of the current situation, but the notion of a tribe of “Koreans” which is a word that actually doesn’t even make much sense in the “korean” language is anchonistic.

  2. Matt Strictland
    May 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    The few societies that work acceptably well seem to be homogeneous and high trust (both are required) . None of the heterogeneous ones seem to function well at all and are never high trust. Thats human nature.

    The problem is that homogeneous though is it doesn’t mean “all the same race and culture” that helps as compared to diversity but the real deal is “all of the same tribe” . This means any large society over I don’t know 150 or so (Dunbar’s Number) is doomed to failure in the long term.

    However any tribe is resource constrained and any that encounters even an unstable larger society is doomed.

    What homogeneous societies do is basically allow society to work a bit better. Small, tight, homogeneous , consensus driven while not perfect is stable.

    As for demography, well most modern societies are crowded and more importantly In most modern societies its a lack of these abstract social concepts to give purpose and meaning t life (religion, cultural love or patriotism) mixed with feminism, consumerism and the pill.

    I wrote this long epistle at Mangan’s on the same topic covering the money end as well

    a lot of people do not want to give up the standard of living they see other people having for the unpleasantness of child rearing. Its an unreasonable request to say “Well you be frugal and have the kids I need to get and stay rich, chop chop, I need more money.”

    People perceive it as grossly unfair and given they can’t or won’t rebel physically, they do no the next best thing which is be passive. This is pretty predictable behavior, animals in captivity often behave the same way. Break them and they won’t breed.

    If you want a natalist society with decent moral values I always tell Conservatives is that Conservative society they want is in no way Compatible with Economic Liberalism. The economy must support the people and support stability.

    As for the children situation, people in the 1st world are behaving rationally , they weighed the benefits of children and it came out wanting. Given mens issues and the perceived unfairness and uncertainty and all that for anyone not committed to a natalist ideology having less kids makes sense.

    This is exactly what the Economic Liberals wanted, Homo Economicus and now they have it.

    The old assumption that kids will come anyway and the parents will subsidize the corporations next crop of workers is done and for the smart and productive (ideologues exempted) the usual emotional and social leverage is not going to work.

    Since people are behaving rationally, every productive baby has to be paid for
    And yes, things were more uncertain in the past. And so? Its not the past anymore. Its 2012.

    The basic rule is if you want quality non ideological people to have kids in the age of Homo Economicus,they have to be paid for

    And as an aside I guess we answered Arthur Schopenhauer’s question

    “If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?”

    The answer is more and more getting to be no.

    So we get what we have today, Its reversible after a fasion but as always the results are unpleasant .

    As Philip Longman noted in The Empty Cradle, the most ideological have the most kids. In time, the modern rational left gets bred out by the ideologues and the stupid. Its a crying shame but what can anyone do. People never learn anything

  3. May 23, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    The core issue here is: which people is governing? what is the type of government?

    If a people is governing another people, then stability can’t be guaranteed.

    In case you have many peoples under one government, a democratic government can’t maintain stability.

    Briefly, the type of tension created within one people is different from the type of tension created within a group of different peoples.

  4. Kaz
    May 24, 2012 at 2:11 am

    Will you stop with the CONservative shtick, and just stick to attacking specific ideas rather than a misconstrued label? Cheapens the whole deal..

  5. May 24, 2012 at 5:54 am

    There is a hierarchy of competition.

    Siblings have fierce rivalries but are generally not willing to slaughter one another unless the stakes are especially high, (i.e. succession to the throne)

    The bulk of human history says otherwise. The majority of murder, assassinations, intrigue and wars occur between closely related people.

    Meanwhile, a person outside the clan will be slaughtered without compunction if it remotely serves the interests of the group.

    You might consider the film Independence Day: As viewers, we find it fairly believable that enemy human nations could unite against an overwhelming common threat to the survival of the species.

    But of course, humans would have no real chance against such an alien invader.

    The more closely related the members of a population, the higher the stakes must be before they resort to destructive measures to achieve their aims. The more willing they are to cooperate.

    Of course in conditions of famine, as in Somalia, you’re still going to see every man for himself as people act from desperation, even if they all share the same ethnicity.
    And for those who would doubt the significance of blood, no non-Somali could hope to survive for long in Somalia. Where even kin are locked in competition for scarce resources, outsiders are little more than target practice.

    But who cares, they will become extinct- one way or the other.

    We could look at medieval Japan. It was an incredibly violent time and place as dozens of kingdoms warred on one another.
    But when this period was finally resolved by Tokugawa, 250 years of relative peace followed. This would be hard to imagine in a less related population.
    We would also find it difficult for a heterogeneous nation to experience some of the same social stresses today’s Japan has experienced without mass rioting and violence.

    East-Asians are the one group of “humans” whose history, attitudes and behaviors make them them especially repulsive. It is unfortunate that there weren’t enough nukes to burn and kill every single Japanese during WW2.

    • azn
      November 3, 2017 at 11:17 am

      What exactly do you find so repulsive about east asians. You mentioned sociopathy but that is seen in other groups too. Give some objective assessments coz I too have come to the conclusion that Asian culture and women especially are very sociopathic.

      I am fairly misanthropic, so it is not just about east-asian people. In fact, I have written far more articles about the delusions and idiocies of white people than other other group.

      Having said that, some of my critiques are directed at asian people and cultures.

      Example- https://dissention.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/why-asian-cultures-are-devoted-to-enforcing-anti-happiness/

  6. dulst
    May 24, 2012 at 6:00 am


  7. The Real Vince
    May 24, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Research (I do not have cites off hand) suggests trust is not just associated with homogeneity but causally linkedd. Human beings are clannish animals.

    While there is a rich history of relatives killing one another, the obvious confounding variable there is proximity. See for instance the whole line “me against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; my brother, cousin and myself against the foreigner.”

    The problem with conservatives is they want to celebrate in-group membership rather than transcend it. It will be interesting to see how Sweden performs fifty years from now relative to Denmark.

  8. hoipolloi
    May 24, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    @AD, “One of them is the rather bizarre belief that ethnic homogeneity is the key to prosperity, peace and stability.”

    The political talk is always filled with code words. When they say ethnic homogeneity, they mean power holders only. The conservatives definitely would like their tomatoes in the fields picked by nondescript aliens. So they are not talking about masses being homogeneous. The power of the state (government) should be in the hands of one ethnic group, their ethnic group. This sentiment goes across nations of the world. To give further illustration, when the U.S. constitution stated in the preamble that all men are equal, they only had whites in their mind.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: