Ethnonationalist.
Civic Nationalism or Ethnic Nationalism?
- Thread starter Duke Nukem
- Start date
DarthOne
☦️
civic nationalism to a large degree. With that said, however...
Doomsought
Well-known member
Civic nationalism is much more useful. You can't change a person's race, but you can change their culture and nationality.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
For ethnic nationalists to innevitably genocide his people for not being white enough.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Again.
"Nah it's cool guys. We'll make them go to our side!"
... Exactly? You do get that the democratic party is a coalition of a bunch of identity groups, and breaking them up basically ensures republican victory forever?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Yeah, they have been saying that for decades and it’s not working. You don’t have to want the USA to be a white ethnostate to realize that the GOP is going to cease to exist if demographics shift too much more."Nah it's cool guys. We'll make them go to our side!"
They've been saying it, but not really doing anything about it. Trump is a major difference here with the black and LGBT vote. Will it succeed? maybe. But at least he is trying.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
It won't. Well, he might shift things 5% or so, but that isn't enough to matter in the long run. The best Trump can do to keep conservatism alive is close the borders as best as he is able, which is what he was elected to do. I actually don't think that Trump is trying to win over non-white votes, he's just being a better conservative in general, but he grovels less for non-white votes than his GOP predecessors did.
They vote for the dems because dems pander to the gibs. Unless you want to pander to the gibs then they won't care. Americas demographics are Americas destiny; and its destiny looks blue.
Basileus_Komnenos
Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαίων
That logic is very very flawed. You can't just assume that because some demographics voted more for one candidate/political that it will stay static and thus "demographics is destiny." This is simply not the case. In the US for example, large amounts of African Americans were once the standard voting block for the GOP. There are still sizable portions of Hispanic Americans (I despise this term because Cubans, Mexicans, Venzuelans, etc are all individual groups) that support/lean towards conservatism. The Venezuelans and Cubans who fled from the Communist Dystopia that is their homeland are examples of such. I myself am an example of this. I'm essentially Indian-American, as in my parents came from India legally and I was born here. We're all Conservative leaning as is most of our community despite the fact that we live in CA which is a notorious progressive/left leaning stronghold.
Similarly I have lots of other relatives in places such as Texas whom are "persons of color." You don't need to be white to be conservative/GOP.
Thank you! One's color of skin doesn't determine how people's ideas and political views. That's mostly determined by environmental and sociological factors. The thing about this chart is that it doesn't take into account that most regular Americans are quite moderate/centrist with many common points of agreement. The problem is that in the US, there's a two party system which polarizes people in two extremes. If your choices are A or B, then you have to choose one or the other as there's no real third option. There's also the fact that the news media and entertainment industry has been taken over with Progressive Ideologues injecting their political views/philosophies into everything. This has been an ongoing trend since the 90's which is like 20 years of propaganda (thankfully its starting to lose steam as people realize what nonsense this stuff is). This brainwashes most people. This is why my older millennial (I'm from gen Z) friends all cheer for things like Communism. To them its a buzzword, they have no real concept of what it actually entails. Once you start a conversation with them detailing what Communism actually is, they turn away from it realizing that they too are Capitalist (or at least this has been my experience). And Gen Z is generally becoming more conservative after seeing how stuff turned out for the Millennials who were pressured to go to college getting a useless degrees and are now burdened with student debt.
What's a gib?
Demographics actually not are destiny. The white demographic represented in this figure is not consistent over the many decades/centuries of US history. A hundred years ago, Italians were not considered white, before that in the 18th/19th Centuries it was Scot-Irish/Anglo-Saxons who were considered whites while Irish people were the ones being discriminated against.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
If black people and Hispanics (the major minority groups in the USA, others may be more conservative) can be won over to the right in any significant numbers, it has yet to be demonstrated by the supposed conservative who favor open borders and insist that any day now all the non-white will see the virtue of free markets and become Republicans.
Last edited:
Drakar
Member
Ideals are fickle and change drastically and frequently. Genetics far less so (most every ethnic group is older than any country existing today). To me, the difference between ethnic and civic nationalism is a lot like the difference between an adopted child and one of your own blood.
At the end of the day, when you are done raising the child, you will leave everything you own to them when you die. I don't know about the rest of you but I'd vastly prefer for my own natural children to inherit my things.
There's no guarantee your kid will have the same values as you and even less guarantee their kid will. Their values may even be the opposite of yours (just look at some of the American generations in the 20th century). It's somewhat more likely if the children are yours and they resemble you, but even if they take your country in a different direction than you'd have liked, they will always be yours if they carry your blood. Not so for immigrants.
the problem with that, is eventally you run out of other peoples money.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Some interesting ideology you have there.
I for one have a pretty fun theory on this - the currently popular divide between ethnic and civic nationalism is artificially inflated for some parties' political propaganda purposes.
In effect, ethnic nationalism with sufficiently loose criteria is effectively indistinguishable from civic nationalism.
Conversely, civic nationalism with sufficiently strict criteria is effectively indistinguishable from ethnic nationalism.
Think about it. Adding up these two statements, in effect there is just one nationalism with a continuum of how many shared factors of nationhood are required to qualify for membership in a nation. At one extreme continuum, there is total cultural unity together with "one drop rule" level biological one. No country is obsessed enough to have achieved that fully, and if there was one, it would be some insane hybrid of Third Reich and North Korea.
On the other extreme, anyone who claims to like the nation's "civics" can be a member. Which is hardly a criterion (and nationalism) at all, but its not hard to find not-so-nationalist wishy washy people subscribing to such a worldview.
In my opinion, any sane form of nationalism would have to be located somewhere in the middle ground between these quite dysfunctional extremes.
Such a middle ground is compatible with some amount of immigration by people who genuinely want to assimilate to this nation, because even if they seem biologically different, due to the sharing of its culture and customs, they would be more likely to form families with members of their new rather than old nation, in few generations biology would do its thing, and their progeny would eventually become biologically indistinguishable aswell.
It is, however, incompatible with mass immigration - because even if in theory large numbers of people could do the above procedure too, all the observations of existing mass immigration suggest that it is extremely unlikely to happen, increasingly so with both absolute and relative size of the immigrant community and the degree of differences between the two communities; no matter where do you place blame for that state of affairs (while you can rest assured that there will be plenty of people throwing plenty of blame in all directions), it still won't happen.
And much like the interpersonal kind, this sort of attitude can lead to tragedies.
To make this even more complicated, this view can be likely stoked by geopolitical needs or ambitions of one of these communities, rather than relevant facts about these communities, their customs, shared interests or way of life. As we are talking of whole distinguishable communities uniting to begin with,assimilation is far from inevitable, hard to enforce, or even hard to establish which direction should it go, if it should happen at all.
This sort of situation can lead to tough questions like "are Scots English?" or "are Chechens Russian?" And then there are more complicated state systems than plain and easy nation-states that may make their own kinda sorta attempts at nationalism, based on some but clearly not absolute degree of cultural and political unity combined with some clear barriers too, like the arrangements Scots have in UK, all sorts of autonomy setups various groups have in some countries, and federations/commonwealths/confederacies etc. in general.
Long story short nationalism = immigration of individuals, preferably ones exceptional in positive ways and eager to join the host nation and share its customs, yes; immigration of whole communities or parallel societies, no. Federations, alliances or commonwealths with other communities that share at least part of the traits that make an ethnicity, maybye, if such a deal is good for both and seen as such.
Common genetic traits will make it somewhat more likely than average to have common ideals.
These processes, after a long time to work, have eventually resulted in formation of groups that more or less share both of these things that we can observe now.
In effect, ethnic nationalism with sufficiently loose criteria is effectively indistinguishable from civic nationalism.
Conversely, civic nationalism with sufficiently strict criteria is effectively indistinguishable from ethnic nationalism.
Think about it. Adding up these two statements, in effect there is just one nationalism with a continuum of how many shared factors of nationhood are required to qualify for membership in a nation. At one extreme continuum, there is total cultural unity together with "one drop rule" level biological one. No country is obsessed enough to have achieved that fully, and if there was one, it would be some insane hybrid of Third Reich and North Korea.
On the other extreme, anyone who claims to like the nation's "civics" can be a member. Which is hardly a criterion (and nationalism) at all, but its not hard to find not-so-nationalist wishy washy people subscribing to such a worldview.
In my opinion, any sane form of nationalism would have to be located somewhere in the middle ground between these quite dysfunctional extremes.
Such a middle ground is compatible with some amount of immigration by people who genuinely want to assimilate to this nation, because even if they seem biologically different, due to the sharing of its culture and customs, they would be more likely to form families with members of their new rather than old nation, in few generations biology would do its thing, and their progeny would eventually become biologically indistinguishable aswell.
It is, however, incompatible with mass immigration - because even if in theory large numbers of people could do the above procedure too, all the observations of existing mass immigration suggest that it is extremely unlikely to happen, increasingly so with both absolute and relative size of the immigrant community and the degree of differences between the two communities; no matter where do you place blame for that state of affairs (while you can rest assured that there will be plenty of people throwing plenty of blame in all directions), it still won't happen.
This view seems like an international version of the typical story of unrequited love. Some community considers another their compatriots (or worse, expects\demands them to be), but the other does not see them as such in return and see themselves as a distinctly separate one, with separate interests.
And much like the interpersonal kind, this sort of attitude can lead to tragedies.
To make this even more complicated, this view can be likely stoked by geopolitical needs or ambitions of one of these communities, rather than relevant facts about these communities, their customs, shared interests or way of life. As we are talking of whole distinguishable communities uniting to begin with,assimilation is far from inevitable, hard to enforce, or even hard to establish which direction should it go, if it should happen at all.
This sort of situation can lead to tough questions like "are Scots English?" or "are Chechens Russian?" And then there are more complicated state systems than plain and easy nation-states that may make their own kinda sorta attempts at nationalism, based on some but clearly not absolute degree of cultural and political unity combined with some clear barriers too, like the arrangements Scots have in UK, all sorts of autonomy setups various groups have in some countries, and federations/commonwealths/confederacies etc. in general.
Long story short nationalism = immigration of individuals, preferably ones exceptional in positive ways and eager to join the host nation and share its customs, yes; immigration of whole communities or parallel societies, no. Federations, alliances or commonwealths with other communities that share at least part of the traits that make an ethnicity, maybye, if such a deal is good for both and seen as such.
In a very long term view, this is a moot distinction. Common ideals will slowly make populations tend towards forming common genetic traits.
Common genetic traits will make it somewhat more likely than average to have common ideals.
These processes, after a long time to work, have eventually resulted in formation of groups that more or less share both of these things that we can observe now.
Last edited:
MrBirthday
Agent of Catgirl Genocide
Already forgotten how that assertion got completely shredded?
Edit: More seriously, when other posters presented counters to your arguement, you were unable to refute them. Indeed, S'task directly shot down your assertion that it was an increased non-white vote that lead to Virginia being flipped.
Last edited:
ShieldWife
Marchioness
The assertion wasn't shredded. People disagreed, foolishly so. For decades the cuckservatives have shouted and shouted that all the immigrants are going to become conservatives, just any day now, we just need to support open borders like the Dems and their lies have proven to be just that - lies. Demographics is destiny and I hope that people realize that before it's too late, but probably not. Trump may be our nation's last chance to stem to tide. There are other forces at play in Virginia, but immigration is a major factor. Immigration is the primary factor in numerous states turning forever blue, including California, maybe even Texas in a few years.