Nearly 1 in 2 Canadians could be an immigrant or the child of an immigrant by 2036

[Endus]

Utter tosh and the five minutes you spent on Wikipedia isn't going to alter that.

It's more that the most cursory of considerations show that your claims don't have merit. *I don't have to dig into more complex sources.

It was most certainly official policy, they actively encouraged the leaders of conquered populations to become more Roman and hoped this would trickle down, this is widely attested in sources.

And that worked both ways, which you're ignoring for some reason. *The Romans weren't a cultural titan that resisted all outside influence, and I have no idea where you're getting that from.

That Roman culture changed is neither here nor there, every culture changes over time due to internal and external influence, e.g. English culture was influenced by Empire without being a multicultural society until after Empire collapsed. Do you think we needed to import Chinese people along with the tea? Of course not, we just adopted bits of other cultures we liked, that is not multiculture, it is monoculture with a gloss on it.

It's literally multiculturalism, you just don't understand what the word means.

There was no benefit to the Roman Empire from multiculturalism, in fact many of the most pressing issues they faced were due to their lack of success in creating a monoculture, which is understandable given the vast area they had under their control and the practical challenges that presented to an ancient civilisation.

From Masada in the East, to the Iceni in the West, multiculturalism provided nothing but headaches for the Romans.

Again, completely wrong. *Their multicultural attitude had huge influence in their capacity to expand their borders, since conquered peoples could submit to Roman rule and continue living pretty much as they always had, so surrender was always an option to protect one's people.

Hell, you just admitted that they could establish a monoculture, which essentially admits that your prior arguments were wrong, but I'm betting you don't see that.

[minteK917]

The roman empire adapted alot of principles from different cultures. Infact even things that endure now like christmas comes from romes ability of culture appropriation and mixing to suit their ends.

[Kalis]

It's more that the most cursory of considerations show that your claims don't have merit. *I don't have to dig into more complex sources.

You don't have the knowledge of those sources, it is nothing about you not wanting to dig into them.

And that worked both ways, which you're ignoring for some reason. *The Romans weren't a cultural titan that resisted all outside influence, and I have no idea where you're getting that from.

I didn't say they were a cultural titan that resisted all outside influences. They were heaily influenced by Hellenic culture, they Romanised that as well.

It's literally multiculturalism, you just don't understand what the word means.

There is no multi- part according to your definition, so that is just a monoculture.

Take the very first line "Multiculturalism is the existence of multiple cultural traditions within a single country, usually considered in terms of the culture associated with an aboriginal ethnic group and foreigner ethnic groups."

The residence of the foreign ethnic group is missing from that example I gave. You are mixing up monocultures being influenced by external groups, which is not multiculturalism, to having multiple cultures living side-by-side, which is.

Again, completely wrong. *Their multicultural attitude had huge influence in their capacity to expand their borders, since conquered peoples could submit to Roman rule and continue living pretty much as they always had, so surrender was always an option to protect one's people.

Their superiority in various fields and the fact they spent years, sometimes decades, buttering up the leaders of societies before any invasion, is what helped them.

Name one ancient source that said they were willing to accept Roman rule in order to preserve their culture and not just lives of their people. One of the reasons that groups often rebelled was due to Roman influence on their cultures, see Josephus for an example.

Hell, you just admitted that they could establish a monoculture, which essentially admits that your prior arguments were wrong, but I'm betting you don't see that.

They couldn't establish a monoculture on the scale needed, they did it where practical, but their aim was usually to get ruling parties Romanised, the plebs were typically an irrelevance and if they got on board then all the better. Roman structure, and that of many ancient societies, was top down, so their target was the leaders in society.

[Damajin]

Goodbye Canada then.

[Tennis]

I'm a first generation Immigrant in Canada.....I know dozens of immigrant families either 1st or 2nd generation and all are middle class or better economically. In fact the only people I know on welfare are "real" Canadians who would be quick to complain that immigrants are taking THEIR JUBZ.


Aren't generalizations fun?

I'm not sure why non Canadians on here who are not educated on the Canadian situation are making such sweeping generalization.

[antelope591]

Isn't it funny you guys were telling us how you were only targetting "illegal" immigration but when the topic switches to legal immigration the response is still the same (just as hostile)? Why don't you alt right pussies actually say what you mean instead of always dancing around an issue?

[ParanoiD84]

Again, completely wrong. *Their multicultural attitude had huge influence in their capacity to expand their borders, since conquered peoples could submit to Roman rule and continue living pretty much as they always had, so surrender was always an option to protect one's people.

Hell, you just admitted that they could establish a monoculture, which essentially admits that your prior arguments were wrong, but I'm betting you don't see that.

That was not the case in the end, they let the hostile immigrants keep parts of their culture and they did not adopt to the Roman culture like they had before, you are right that they did before but not in the end.

This is a quote from a real historian from oxford there is plenty more similiar to this from other historians as well, not wiki.

There are two major lessons to be learned from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and these are made apparent in Heather's book. First and foremost is the danger of uncontrolled hostile immigration. That the empire could absorb large groups of immigrants is beyond doubt. It could and did do so over several centuries. But even the Roman Empire, with its vast territory and unprecedented wealth, had a limit to the number of people it could absorb and Romanize.

Eventually, the immigrants grew more powerful than the existing Roman authority and, maintaining to some degree their independence of spirit and character, were unwilling to relinquish their own culture and adopt the Roman. Vast blocs of once-Roman territory eventually became foreign and even the preexisting Roman population, eventually outnumbered, had to make peace with the newcomers.


So sure the roman empire did great bringing others into their culture at the hight of the empire, not so much at the end of it. It's what happens when you have uncontrolled hostile immigration that will not adopt to your culture, much like we see today.

[Deleted]

No they didn't. One of the largest problems for both Empires was dealing with differing cultural attitudes, it led to numerous revolts and deaths throughout the history of both. Multiculturalism was known as a shit idea even then.

Romanisation was a policy whereby they encouraged the cultures they had conquered, sometimes at the point of a sword, to become more Roman, as they knew the inherent weakness in multiple cultures existing within the Empire, on both Imperial unity and the effects on everyday life, such as trading and law enforcement.

Romanization wasn't a policy, it was a culture adaptation based on the roman military machine and trade. Just like America influenced the culture of half of the world during the second half of the 20th Century.

But, yeah, it wasn't multiculturalism.

- - - Updated - - -

That was not the case in the end, they let the hostile immigrants keep parts of their culture and they did not adopt to the Roman culture like they had before, you are right that they did before but not in the end.

This is a quote from a real historian from oxford there is plenty more similiar to this from other historians as well, not wiki.

There are two major lessons to be learned from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and these are made apparent in Heather's book. First and foremost is the danger of uncontrolled hostile immigration. That the empire could absorb large groups of immigrants is beyond doubt. It could and did do so over several centuries. But even the Roman Empire, with its vast territory and unprecedented wealth, had a limit to the number of people it could absorb and Romanize.

Eventually, the immigrants grew more powerful than the existing Roman authority and, maintaining to some degree their independence of spirit and character, were unwilling to relinquish their own culture and adopt the Roman. Vast blocs of once-Roman territory eventually became foreign and even the preexisting Roman population, eventually outnumbered, had to make peace with the newcomers.

Even Peter Heather admits that the Western Roman Empire fell because the constant civil wars and the courts conflicts. Many barbarians actually wanted and became part of the Roman structure and defended its romanitas. He also ignores the military concerns of the imperial generals at the time quite often on his books.

It's impossible to compare the events of the fall of the Western Empire with today's events.

[Kalis]

Romanization wasn't a policy, it was a culture adaptation based on the roman military machine and trade. Just like America influenced the culture of half of the world during the second half of the 20th Century.

Romanisation was a policy, they went out of their way to Romanise where they could do so. They actively encouraged people to become Romanised and even handed out citizenship to them, though later they did that willy nilly.

The Romans were a very pragmatic bunch, they knew the advantages of having everyone push in the same direction from both an economic standpoint and from that of reducing internal security problems.

As I pointed out, when it came to things like the Jewish and Iceni revolts, they countered them with brute force and increased Romanisation.

[ParanoiD84]

Romanization wasn't a policy, it was a culture adaptation based on the roman military machine and trade. Just like America influenced the culture of half of the world during the second half of the 20th Century.

But, yeah, it wasn't multiculturalism.

- - - Updated - - -



Even Peter Heather admits that the Western Roman Empire fell because the constant civil wars and the courts conflicts. Many barbarians actually wanted and became part of the Roman structure and defended its romanitas. He also ignores the military concerns of the imperial generals at the time quite often on his books.

It's impossible to compare the events of the fall of the Western Empire with today's events.

Im not arguing that there where more reasons, didnt help that the huns pushed millions of people into rome either or hundreds of thousand i cant remember.

[Tennis]

Goodbye Canada then.

We've been taking in millions of immigrants and doing just fine bud. Please don't spread fear!

[Deleted]

Romanisation was a policy, they went out of their way to Romanise where they could do so. They actively encouraged people to become Romanised and even handed out citizenship to them, though later they did that willy nilly.

The Romans were a very pragmatic bunch, they knew the advantages of having everyone push in the same direction from both an economic standpoint and from that of reducing internal security problems.

Romans themselves were hellenized and spoke greek among the elites. "Romanization" happened mostly on the western part of Europe, with the culture transformation of the pre-roman tribes. And even so, many of their former cultures and traditions moved to the Roman society. I can easily give you the case of Endovelico in Iberia.

Romans were pragmatic, yes, and their absorbed culture traits from where they had military camps.

As I pointed out, when it came to things like the Jewish and Iceni revolts, they countered them with brute force and increased Romanisation.

The Jewish rebellion happened because another factors (tax protest turned violent), because the east was already hellenized for century.

- - - Updated - - -

Im not arguing that there where more reasons, didnt help that the huns pushed millions of people into rome either or hundreds of thousand i cant remember.

Closer to the hundreds of thousands, according to the last studies (due logistical problems). And Roman Emperors accepted them all (minus their leaders), they needed manpower for the constant civil wars.

It is why it's hard to compare both periods.

[Kalis]

Romans themselves were hellenized and spoke greek among the elites. "Romanization" happened mostly on the western part of Europe, with the culture transformation of the pre-roman tribes. And even so, many of their former cultures and traditions moved to the Roman society. I can easily give you the case of Endovelico in Iberia.

Romans were pragmatic, yes, and their absorbed culture traits from where they had military camps.

The Romans were Hellenised prior to the Imperial period, their favourite foundation myth was basically just a follow up story to a Greek original. It could be argued that they were an offshoot of Hellenic culture in many ways.

There was also a pushback from certain parts of Roman society in respect of the influence Hellenic culture had on the Roman one, there was that quote about the conquered conquering the conquerors, or whatever it was and that was about Rome falling too heavily under the sway of Greece.

The Jewish rebellion happened because another factors (tax protest turned violent), because the east was already hellenized for century.

And they countered it with brute force and a policy of increased Roman cultural domination, they saw the problems of what we would call multiculturalism and dealt with them in their own way when needs arose.

People like Endus claim the Romans were inclusive and that somehow multiculturalism was a reason for their success, but they were nasty bastards who were tolerant only so long as it didn't interfere with the running of the state, the moment it did they stamped down hard. And there is no reason to believe that multiculturalism was beneficial to the Roman Empire at all, the Romans certainly didn't see it that way.

[Deleted]

The Romans were Hellenised prior to the Imperial period, their favourite foundation myth was basically just a follow up story to a Greek original. It could be argued that they were an offshoot of Hellenic culture in many ways.

There was also a pushback from certain parts of Roman society in respect of the influence Hellenic culture had on the Roman one, there was that quote about the conquered conquering the conquerors, or whatever it was and that was about Rome falling too heavily under the sway of Greece.

And yet it were the barbarians that continued the latinized culture and military-turned-monarchic structure and the Romans (the eastern part) fully embraced their hellenic influences.

[Kalis]

And yet it were the barbarians that continued the latinized culture and military-turned-monarchic structure and the Romans (the eastern part) fully embraced their hellenic influences.

The Romans never fully dominated culture in the Eastern portion of the Empire, partly due to their reverence of Greek culture, but also because once the Romans dominated Greece, there was not a huge amount of problems from that region - the Greeks concerning themselves more in arguing the toss over minor philosophical disputes than rebelling.

Places like Sparta were effectively theme parks under Roman rule, where the likes of Plutarch could go and wonder at the ancient rituals, some of which were not particularly ancient, with Athens becoming a university town. The thing about Roman tolerance is, that they were only typically tolerant as long as you knew your place.

Hellenic influence on early Roman culture was so profound, that it is difficult to tell them apart in many aspects, even for the Romans themselves.

[Stelio Kontos]

Romans multicultural?

Never heard that garbage in any history or classics course I've ever taken.

There's a huge difference between a degree of syncretism (very limited in the Romans' case) and multiculturalism.

[Deleted]

There's a huge difference between a degree of syncretism (very limited in the Romans' case) and multiculturalism.

Actually, military and religious syncretism were part of the Roman pragmatic success.

[Deleted]

Proof please. Canada's best and most successful city by far, is also the most multicultural city in the world.

For starters, Canada is not a city. You don't know that?

You have proven yourself to be inknowlodgeable and a nazi (you hate Israel).