Societal trust levels tend to correlate with cultural and racial homogeneity. The erosion of trust within Western civilization reflects this trend, particularly in the United States following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act).
But this is hardly unique to the modern era. Consider ancient Rome: as the Empire expanded, it absorbed vast, culturally diverse populations. Over time, this growing diversity--combined with weak integration mechanisms--gradually strained social cohesion and undermined trust in institutions.
It’s a recurring pattern throughout human history.
That seems like a wildly questionable conclusion to draw. 60 years prior to that act, there was a huge influx of immigrants who would have been considered non-white at the time: Italians, the Irish, Germans, Eastern Europeans, etc. To the people of the time, that was a very non-homogenous period.
True, but there’s a key difference -- those earlier waves, despite being seen as "outsiders" at the time, still came from the same civilizational foundation. Europeans, whether Irish, Italains, Germans, or Poles, shared a common history shaped by Christianity, Greco-Roman influence, and broadly similar cultural norms. The friction was real, but over time, assimilation worked because there was enough cultural overlap to make it possible.
The post-1965 immigration wave brought in people from entirely different civilizations -- with no shared history, values, or worldview. That isn’t just "non-homogeneity," it’s civilizational fragmentation. And unlike the 19th and early 20th century European immigration, there’s no historical precedent where that level of deep cultural divergence integrates at scale -- not in Rome, not in Byzantium, not anywhere.
Or maybe it is just familiarity. You could have a village where everyone knows everyone else and most people have never travelled more than ten miles from where they were born. Or a city of thousands. Of course one will be more trusting than the other because people trust the people they are familiar with. And understandably more isolated communities will have more unique culture. Culture and ultimately race are more a consequence than a cause.
I think there is something more than that. India is fairly homogeneous. Was high trust decades (5+) ago. Trust getting lower today. Similar practices (trusting a stranger with your child) would have been conceivable in the same timeframe as mailing kids but not today.
I think the other sister comment makes sense: protecting children had a very different definition back then than it is today.
Because history treats them as a package deal. Tokugawa Japan saw foreign faces as existential threats. The Ottomans built trust only within ethnic/religious silos (millets). Rome demanded a trinity of assimilation: Latin language, Roman customs, and worship of state gods (later emperor cults).
Today's civic nationalism experiment rejects this link, yet no society has sustained high-trust diversity without such enforced unity. Rome threw everything at assimilation: shared language, values, identity above tribe, and state religion. It still fragmented.
So Western nations face an unprecedented gamble: Can they maintain cohesion without these historical levers? History offers no successful precedents, only warnings.
I think there is something more than that. India is fairly homogeneous. Was high trust decades (5+) ago. Trust getting lower today. Similar practices (trusting a stranger with your child) would have been conceivable in the same timeframe as mailing kids but not today.
It's a recurring bullshit just-so story peddled by people who reject the complexity of actual history, which is why you provide no sources: you have learned Spengler and Hanania are unwelcome in polite society but not why, and there is no one else to whom you could turn. - well, Steve Sailer, I suppose.
thats not very convincing. you should also show that it wasnt say, inequality that killed the trust
canada is a high trust society because of its ethnic diversity, and the competition between french and englisg culture. europe is in a much higher trust state as the EU than it ever was as a set of competing great powers.
greece has plenty of homogeny, but is very low trust.
keeping racists happy is probably pretty uncorrelated to trust, compared to say, government services rendered, and democratic participation.
But this is hardly unique to the modern era. Consider ancient Rome: as the Empire expanded, it absorbed vast, culturally diverse populations. Over time, this growing diversity--combined with weak integration mechanisms--gradually strained social cohesion and undermined trust in institutions.
It’s a recurring pattern throughout human history.