An excellent response, with many valid points. As I said, I brought these points up not really out of any disagreement, but because I think there are some interesting ideas to develop out of them. A few thoughts in return:
Your choice of Rome as a more tolerant society is a good one (it is one of the reasons the Founder looked to Rome’s constitution in crafting our own, after all). Rome’s multiculturalism is one of the things that we discussed even in my major as to why Rome was so successful as opposed to Athens in maintaining its Empire for such an extended period of time. I brought up the points I did mostly because I think it presents an interesting nuance to the discussion of multiculturalism, since, as I noted, Rome achieved this multiculturalism without necessarily having made the conscious choice of being multicultural. At the end of the day, it really came about more through political necessity. Rome extended citizenship to various local nobles within the provinces to obtain their cooperation in their military occupation and through the settlement of colonies of soldiers in said provinces, rather than say the immigration based integration where are used to in the modern society. Indeed, universal citizenship itself was not granted until the 3rd Century, long after Rome’s acquisition of the Empire at a point when there was really no longer a difference between Italy and the rest of the provinces. Combine that with the natural economic draw of the capital of a world wide empire, and there we have it, whether they wanted it or not.
I also think the way Rome managed this multiculturalism is interesting. As I noted, it was not a free for all. Rome was successful in creating an identity/value that one was able to partake of regardless of their backgrounds and local experience. One of the problems with multiculturalism in Europe right now, in my opinion, is that the identity of many European countries depends in a large degree on their ethnic identity, which makes it harder for immigrants from foreign cultural to integrate (thereby contributing, for example, to the slums that have caused so many problems in France). In contrast, the US has (despite its own history of xenophobia) been much more successful in integrating immigrants into its society because there is no ethnic component to its national identity. Rather, one is an American if they believe in the principles of the Constitution and Declaration and aspire to the “American Dream.” The concept/ideal of Rome and its citizenship somehow reach a point akin to this American experience. Indeed, it is amusing in many respects that the “ideal of Rome” ultimately outlasted the Empire itself (at least in the West). This is true not only of the successor states, but even in the policies of Charlemagne, Otto I, Napoleon, Bismarck, and, to a degree, the US and EU.
Nevertheless, it is also interesting (especially as we apply multiculturalism to a modern setting) that Rome policed its cultural boundaries in order to maintain this ideal as well. Despite the fact that the Christians deeply professed their political loyalty to the Emperor, the Christian persecutions of came about precisely because the Christians were unwilling, from a Roman perspective, to integrate fully into the society. Indeed, I once engaged in an interesting discussion of how Rome’s failure to police these boundaries also contributed to its down. A friend of mine finds it immensely interesting that the Gothic invaders, who were mostly employed by the Roman army as soldiers, were ultimately granted their own laws, courts, and almost autonomous territorial areas within the Empire. This significantly restricted the central power of the state (both to raise revenue and to actually administer the Empire and manage its factions) and ultimately, he believes, was one of the many factors that ultimately contributed to the Fall of the Western Empire. After all, it was a Goth who overthrew Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor, but (unlike the previous foreign emperors, never felt that he was in a cultural position to declare himself Emperor. His successors did the same, which is an interesting historical development.
If we were to apply these institutional lessons to the modern day, I think it shows that successfully multicultural integration comes about when a trans-cultural ideal can be established to which each immigrant culture is able to ascribe and when said immigrant cultures are then granted autonomy to maintain elements of their culture within the framework of this trans-cultural ideal. However, too much autonomy can be counterproductive by dissuading the integration necessary to preserve entity upholding the idea itself. Finally, the fact that the main impetus for Rome’s integration (at least in political terms) was ultimately the Army and the colonies dotted throughout the Empire, rather than the Capital, I think is also instructive. Multiculturalism (as measured by the gradual advancement of colonials to the office of Emperor) was effected because of the individual exposure of various ethnic factions within the Empire to one another. The soldiers were able to support a colonial from Spain as Emperor not so much because he was a Spaniard, but because they knew what type of general he was and how he would take care of his men. Once again, applied to a modern setting, I think such interact underscores 1) the importance of interacting with those “others” foreign to our own social/cultural backgrounds to gain understanding and 2) the danger that selecting leadership based solely on ethnic/cultural criteria, rather than on their individual merit, has in presenting a false sense of multiculturalism.
I disagree, in part, with your characterization of the Crusader Kingdoms. The statement that their goal was to “ kill Muslims and establish a uni-cultural Germanic kingdom in Palestine” could in many ways just as easily be applied to the Muslim Conquests of the early Caliphs or, given the role colonization played in Rome’s own history, its efforts in the Western Colonies. I think there is also a cultural clash that comes into play that is often unrecognized. I will not dispute that the Crusaders sought to establish Western political control over Palestine. However, as I am sure you will recall, by the time of the first Crusade 1095, the Holy Land had only been under Muslim Rule for 459 years (636 AD). That is approximately the time that separates us from Luther or Columbus, give or take a few decades. One could argue that Palestine had been Christian just as long, if not longer than it had been Muslim at that point (although, admittedly it was probably slightly more Muslim at the time).
Furthermore, although there is something to be said for the Western powers lack of capacity to launch anything akin to the Crusades prior to the first few centuries after Charlemagne, it is also interesting to look closely at some of the contributing causes for the First Crusade. The first of these was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (the holiest site in Christendom)by the Muslim Caliph Abu Ali Mansur in 1009. We could, interestingly enough, add his ban on the celebration of Epiphany and Easter and the use of wine (so important for the Eucharist) in 1004, and his law of differentiation in 1005, requiring Christians and Jews to were clothing that would make them instantly recognizable. Prior to the 1st crusade, there had also been a significant increase in attacks on Christian Pilgrims to the Holy Land by local Muslims. The second factor worth considering was the major set back incurred by the Christian Byzantine Empire after its defeat by the Muslim Seljuks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 (essentially the death blow that would lead to the Muslim conquest of Anatolia and the Byzantine Empire’s fall in 1453 to the Muslim Ottomans). There after it is just a matter of political football as each side seeks to reclaim lost territory.
Were the Crusades then an aggressive effort to establish a Germanic monoculture, or an effort to preserve a minority culture that appeared on the brink of disappearing in the face of the Muslim states own conquests and efforts to establish a monoculture? I will not dispute that both sides committed their atrocities against members of the opposite faith or that there was no integration on the scale of Ancient Rome. However, from what information we have it appears that the Crusader Kingdoms (at least initially) maintained a significant amount of inter-cultural cooperation, reminiscent in many ways, although perhaps not to the same degree, of the early intercultural cooperation practiced by the Muslim Caliphate. Indeed, we might say that the sovereigns and their faith changes, but not the multi-cultural makeup of the society. I bring this up only to note that it is a marked difference from the behavior of say Spain in 1492, when upon completing its own “crusade” it expelled both the Jews and Muslims to actually create a monoculture. In sum, were they as good as Rome, No. But I think some of the modern treatment the Crusades get in our day ignores these important nuances.
I think your generally right about cities and the role they play. Ultimately, the receptiveness of certain regions of the country to the Revolution itself has little to do with multiculturalism in and of its. I would postulate that New York and Philly had more loyalists because, yes, they had more people, but also, more particularly, they had more people whose fortunes were dependent on trade with England than the small towns of New England ;o) The fact that loyalists succeeded more in the South probably has more to do with the fact that British/Royalists forces generally won more battles whatsoever. It some sense it is actually miraculous we won in the end at all ;o) That said, if I could, I would modify your statement about cities. I agree that, as a general principle, cities (particularly ports of entry, where immigrants first encounter a foreign culture) due to their size and economic opportunities are magnates attractive for cultural exiles, as opposed to say a small town in the mid-west. However, I think the example of the Roman elites resistance to multiculturalism as well as San Francisco’s expulsion of the Chinese (as well as the fact that there are things like cultural ghettos and areas like Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Miami, etc in cities) shows that cities can be as monocultural as the rural area. In other words, just because it is a city does not necessarily mean that it will be multicultural.
Rather, the advantage cities have is that they (through economic necessity) can force people of different cultural backgrounds to interact as well a , thereby increasing both assimilation as well as cultural exposure that can help to break down cultural barriers and the associated “otherness” of different cultures. I think you would agree that multicultural understanding is generally achieved when there is cultural familiarity, especially on the person to person level. The “other” ceases to be “those Jew” or “the Italian” or “the Arab” and simply my neighbor Bob, or my co-worker Mary, or the shop keeper Abdul. Rural areas can achieve this level of cultural tolerance, of course. Usually (as a rule, as you suggest) it will take longer than cities because of the decreased cultural turn over that occurs because of their different economies. That said, I think it all ultimately depends the tolerance in built to their own cultures. Case in point, I think we could classify Utah as being pretty rural for the most part, yet it is to the credit of its inbuilt culture that it along among similar “rural” states was still willing to accept Syrian refugees. The same could be said of Quincy, Illinois in the 1800's (also pretty rural at the time) which also accepted religious refugees.
One of the most fascinating aspects of ancient culture was the belief that the beneficial treatment of strangers was sacrosanct. This principle is prevalent in Middle Eastern culture (think Abraham and the angles or Lot in Soddom), but also was pretty strong in Greek culture as well. Zeus was the protector of strangers and wanders, and there are a number of myths discussing how individuals entertained strangers unaware that they were in fact the gods. Despite the Greeks self-perceived cultural superiority, hospitality, once given, was something that one would not withdraw, and the safety and comfort of the guest was inviolate. This was especially true in rural areas and foreign lands, where one could not rely on a close community or family for support when traveling. It is interesting to contemplate that principle of tolerance and outreach when we consider multiculturalism, especially in the ancient world. It is perhaps a more important question, given the refugee crises around us, to contemplate why that principle of kindness toward strangers wandering among is so resisted in modern society (I have my theories, but that is a separate discussion ;o) ).
Anyway, an enjoyable conversation ;o) Thank you for your response!