McNeil, Polyethnicity and National Unity

In three lectures given at the University of Toronto, William H. McNeil discusses the rise and reasons for polyethnicity and global unity throughout history. In the first of these, he indicates his approach as one of explaining that polyethnicity is and has been normal amongst most civilized societies (with some extraordinary exceptions, notably Japan) and that ethnically unitary states were exceptional in theory and seldom approached in actual practice. He cites conquest, disease, and trade as factors that explained the prevalence of polyethnicity amongst civilized societies before 1750, with a heavy focus on urban areas and city-states as the major crossing points for these. Ethnic diversity diminished as native and immigrant populations mixed, except for certain societies such as Japan were foreigners were usually those who brought unique and desired skills, tools or goods with them. Mcneil continues in lecture two on the subject of nationalism, stating that we now know that ethnic homogeneity within a certain geographic area is time bound, although along the rise of the idea of the nation-state had assumed the presence of one dominant or prevailing nationality group over others. The connections that arose as a result of the rise of these thoughts of nationalism weakened local differences and made communities spanning long distances stronger. At the same time, the increasingly interconnected world facilitated the spread of disease amongst numerous populations (a notable example being the Aztecs after Cortez's contact with them). As McNeil mentioned in his first lecture, most European cities had little problem replacing the dead with individuals from the countryside. These lower class individuals where drawn upon by the political and social elite to form the working class and armies (where they were indoctrinated into a sense of comradeship) that could be used to expand ones economic or national domain. States' power expanded as their borders grew and more people migrated into the cities, making higher taxes and new public services necessary in order to prevent revolutionary leanings amongst the poor and malcontent.

I found McNeil's insight on the "time-bound and evanescent" nature of homogeneity in a nation-state very interesting and quite accurate. His example that the Roman and Macedonian empires' conquest of other empires and peoples led to the very downfall of any ideas about their own "native" ethic dominance. As a Japanese major, I found it especially relevant to Japan; although they were successful in isolating themselves from a majority of the world for a matter of over two hundred years, they could not continue this trend forever with the introduction of imperialism. Today, no society can afford to be completely isolated, nor can achieve complete ethnic homogeneity (barring some government-protected tribal peoples, perhaps).

I also found the discussion of "distorted self-images" of national histories interesting, as are present in Japan and Canada, as McNeil mentions. He highlights the fact that the transition of early city-states into polyethnic centers had incredibly positive consequences for the native populations, even as those famous writers in Rome he mentions were reminiscing about the old, pure, virtuous Roman state. Yet McNeil also says that the unanimous view these Romans provide has created an agreement amongst modern historians and others who, although have differing views, agree on this picture painted by the Romans as well. So, to this extent, that picture valuable as an indication of shared values arising out of a sense of a community amongst all Romans. I'm a little unsure of what McNeil's views were of this, and I'd like to discuss it in class.