McNeill

In Polyethnicity and National Unity in World History by William McNeill, the discussion is based upon the homogeneity of societies throughout history. He claims that homogeneity began to describe "barbaric" communities, like excluded islands and unknown villages. By exemplifying the ways on which countries worked, McNeill was able to show how trading, commerce, and commodity was the push behind the movement that made homogeneity a rare characteristic. Naturally, after the trade and communication between foreign countries, the mixing of ethnicities within a single country multiply; McNeill calls this Polyethnicity. By definition, polyethnicity refers to the close proximity of people of differing ethnicities within a single country or region. He attributes multiple things to the emergence of this term, such as conquest and post-war land-divisions as well as immigration and intermarriage within a modern scheme. McNeill states within his lectures that polyethnicity has become the cultural norm for societies, and the concept grew unto itself between the 18th and 20th centuries. He claims this happened in Europe due to nationalistic concern around political organization. Finally, according to McNeill, World War I was the true turning point in when homogeneity began to weaken within nations.

I think the concept of homogeneity and polyethnicity, as discussed in these lectures is very interesting. We all know that certain people come from particular places around the world. And we all know that groups and nationalities at one point centered around one region. And finally, we're all very knowledgable in the facts that America is a melting pot of all the differing ethnicities of the world. But reading these lectures brought out the, my own, ignorance of how things have actually come to be as they are now. Disregarding America, I never considered the mixing of nationalities elsewhere in the world.

Though within lecture one or two, I can't recall, McNeill does mention the fact that some countries remain more homogeneous than others (Japan, for example). I think it's interesting that when we try to think of nations which may still be like this, less polyethnic that is, the nations of the East are what come to mind. Why is this so? Maybe i'm just being "american" and ignorant of the true facts, but I can't help but think the countries of Europe are more ethnically diverse. Africa is one thing, due to it's majority of third world status countries, but at this point (though I have not referenced the UN website) I'm fairly certain that many eastern countries are not 3rd world...