Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Civic vs. Ethnic Nationalism

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:06:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I started this thread to discuss two separate forms of governance that aren't commonly discussed; civic nationalism, also commonly called "liberal nationalism," or ethnic nationalism.

Now, in basic overview, civic nationalism is when a government is formed not on the basis of shared history, ethnicity or language; civic nationalism is based on ideas that a country and society come together based on the rights and laws provided by the government.

For example; Canada. Canada is a very diverse state, founded in respects to three main cultures - Protestant English, Catholic French, and First Nations. It is much too hard to really bring all these diverse groups together under the banner of "Canada," because of the differences inherent to all cultures. So, instead of basing our laws, citizenship and ideals on a shared ethnicity, Canadians base our laws, citizenship and ideals based on shared rights that all of us are entitled to. It is because of that unifying factor, we're really able to survive as a country, because otherwise we would break up into many pieces.

Now, ethnic nationalism is the opposite of this. It is most commonly found in countries where shared history and identity is overwhelmingly present. This means that a country comes together based on the shared ideals inherent to their shared identity, and the country is governed as such.

A good example is France. France has always had a majority population of French citizens, with very small and not very large minorities. The country was founded based on the French identity, and the laws reflect that. For instance, the laws coming recently out of that neo-Gaullist government of Nicolas Sarkozy that ban all religious symbols in public schools is a perfect example; secularism is an important part of the modern French identity, regardless of the increasing numbers of minorities coming into the country. This is how ethnic nationalist countries are governed.

Now that I've given a basic idea of what these two ideas entail, what do people think? It is clear where such governments are ideally placed, but which system is considered better, especially in the increasingly globalized world? How can ethnic nationalist governments transform into civic ones, and vice versa? Which system causes more problems? I look forward to any comments!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:16:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ethnic Nationialism is much better.

The crime rate is much lower. The citizens like each other more. Overall, people are happier.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:27:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 2:21:19 PM, MTGandP wrote:
They are both bad. Nationalism = irrationality to the extreme.

He is not talking about the Nationalism that means extreme patriotism.

He is talking about the actual ethnic percentage of a population.

Country A - Civic Nationalism
40% white
20% black
20% hispanic
15% asian
5% other

Country B - Ethnic Nationalism
90% white
10% other
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:27:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 2:21:19 PM, MTGandP wrote:
They are both bad. Nationalism = irrationality to the extreme.

No no, don't bloat the term to that. Nationalism in this sense just means how you govern, what the laws of your country will be based on, etc. We're not talking about over-patriotic silliness here.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:31:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 2:16:44 PM, Nags wrote:
Ethnic Nationialism is much better.

The crime rate is much lower. The citizens like each other more. Overall, people are happier.

So, the minorities that come to the country for a better life are just left out? And I wouldn't say that people "like each other more" - if you're different, you're bad. Its clear as well that everyone is different, and if the government and society doesn't address such a fact, then you're heading for problems.

I'll use France as another example. Ethnic nationalism is the mainstream idea there, and the racism, the sexism, the pure discrimination based on any difference imaginable is so evident and affects so much, it shuts down entire cities. I think this promotes more rigid, stubborn ideologues that do not compromise and create such a situation where the ball gets rolling towards violence.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:46:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 2:31:10 PM, Volkov wrote:

So, the minorities that come to the country for a better life are just left out?

Yes.

And I wouldn't say that people "like each other more" - if you're different, you're bad. Its clear as well that everyone is different, and if the government and society doesn't address such a fact, then you're heading for problems.

If everyone speaks the same language and has the same religion and is the same color, than people aren't going to be racist. Which is why ethnic nationalism is better. It creates much less problems.

I'll use France as another example. Ethnic nationalism is the mainstream idea there, and the racism, the sexism, the pure discrimination based on any difference imaginable is so evident and affects so much, it shuts down entire cities. I think this promotes more rigid, stubborn ideologues that do not compromise and create such a situation where the ball gets rolling towards violence.

Which is why pure ethnic nationalism is needed. The discrimination is mostly towards Muslims, who speak a different language, are different colors, have a radically different religion, and just live a radically different life. If everyone was the same, the discrimination wouldn't exist.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 2:53:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 2:46:23 PM, Nags wrote:
Yes.

Ah.

If everyone speaks the same language and has the same religion and is the same color, than people aren't going to be racist. Which is why ethnic nationalism is better. It creates much less problems.

Except for the entire thing that there is no one out there that is really the same in all those regards. It is asking for segregation.

Which is why pure ethnic nationalism is needed. The discrimination is mostly towards Muslims, who speak a different language, are different colors, have a radically different religion, and just live a radically different life. If everyone was the same, the discrimination wouldn't exist.

Under a civic nationalist government though, these problems don't exist in the forces that they do in other countries. There is of course racism and etc., but it is much lower than others, because the laws and ideals of the government and society is based on the rights provided to its jus soli citizens. There is no need for discrimination to flair up, and if it does, everyone is given the chance to mediate and handle the problems properly, and create a better solution out of it.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:03:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 2:53:56 PM, Volkov wrote:

Except for the entire thing that there is no one out there that is really the same in all those regards. It is asking for segregation.

Well, I was talking about theoretically- Ethnic Nationalism > Civic Nationialism.

Also, strong borders and a strict immigration policy can keep "different" people out. Segregation isn't needed.

Under a civic nationalist government though, these problems don't exist in the forces that they do in other countries. There is of course racism and etc., but it is much lower than others, because the laws and ideals of the government and society is based on the rights provided to its jus soli citizens. There is no need for discrimination to flair up, and if it does, everyone is given the chance to mediate and handle the problems properly, and create a better solution out of it.

Like in the Obama/Gates/Cambridge Cop incident? There was no racial divide, right? Wrong. The blacks were on Gates side. The whites were on the Cop's side.

Discrimination is rampant in all societies, there are more instances of it in Civic Nationalism also, because there is more chance for it to happen.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:14:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:03:59 PM, Nags wrote:
Well, I was talking about theoretically- Ethnic Nationalism > Civic Nationialism.

I respectfully disagree.

Also, strong borders and a strict immigration policy can keep "different" people out. Segregation isn't needed.

That is anti-globalization and anti-business, anti-freedom of movement, etc., in a lot of cases.

Like in the Obama/Gates/Cambridge Cop incident? There was no racial divide, right? Wrong. The blacks were on Gates side. The whites were on the Cop's side.

The US is more ethnic nationalist than civic. There is an interesting mixture though. But they were able to sort it out peacefully, were they not? Do you see riots, as there would have been in France? Is Boston shut down? Is half of the US up in arms? No, because the President, who I believe is a civic nationalist, said that he screwed up, and wanted to mediate it properly.

Discrimination is rampant in all societies, there are more instances of it in Civic Nationalism also, because there is more chance for it to happen.

Just because there is more frequency, doesn't mean it is necessarily bad (though I disagree that the frequency is greater). It is better because the problems can be solved without resorting to extreme measures or violence; the government will see ideas with laws in mind, not biased ethnicity. This ensures a just ruling for both sides. It is all about smoothing out the bumps in the road; you can't simply ignore them and act like it is a flat surface.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:30:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:14:17 PM, Volkov wrote:

That is anti-globalization and anti-business, anti-freedom of movement, etc., in a lot of cases.

I'd call it anti-globalization, yes. How is it anti-business? It's not anti-freedom of movement either, I'm not keeping citizens in, I'm just keeping immigrants out.

The US is more ethnic nationalist than civic. There is an interesting mixture though.

As of now, it is. But by 2042, whites will make up less than half the population.
http://online.wsj.com...

But they were able to sort it out peacefully, were they not?

For the most part, yes.

Do you see riots, as there would have been in France? Is Boston shut down? Is half of the US up in arms?

No. But, I don't think France would be shut down either. It is too theoretical and probably would never happen anyway.

No, because the President, who I believe is a civic nationalist, said that he screwed up, and wanted to mediate it properly.

He shouldn't of said anything in the first place...

---

Do you see blacks fighting blacks in America? No.

Do you see whites fighting whites in America? No.

Do you see whites fighting blacks in America? Yes.

Do you see hispanics lighting the American flag on fire? Yes.

Do you see French fighting Muslims in France? Yes. And yes, there may be more violence. But, if the Muslims' weren't there in the first place, then the problems wouldn't exist.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:31:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:12:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Why must nations be separated by geography?

What do you mean? I don't believe they're necessarily always separated by geography, though they commonly are, ie., almost every African nation is based on geography of the old colonial lines, instead of the tribal lines.

That is generally just because history has made it that way. In cases where you have nations defined mostly on geography, not on ethnicity, civic nationalist ideals should be more present, in order to avoid conflict and keep the nation together.

Plus, though I know you're pro-small geographical governments, the more you band together, the better chance you have to survive, especially if you're more a country of different minorities than one overwhelming majority.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:40:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:30:56 PM, Nags wrote:
I'd call it anti-globalization, yes.

I always figured you were pro-globalization. Or is this just a thought exercise?

How is it anti-business?

Protectionism is bad. Trade is good, as trade promotes free markets and business growth, as well as better labour opportunities.

It's not anti-freedom of movement either, I'm not keeping citizens in, I'm just keeping immigrants out.

It is anti-freedom of movement in a way, as you're denying others the rights to come into your country. It isn't anti-freedom of movement in terms of domestic rights, but it is in human rights and international law.

As of now, it is. But by 2042, whites will make up less than half the population.
http://online.wsj.com...

So? Afraid of something?

No. But, I don't think France would be shut down either. It is too theoretical and probably would never happen anyway.

It's happened and has threatened to happen several times. My friend has been in Paris right on the verge of a threatened strike of city workers, and her family had to ship her out of there because they warned that water, electricity, transportation, even the local government, could shut down completely because of it.

He shouldn't of said anything in the first place...

Yeah, that was pretty silly. But he solved it properly, and that is the point.

Do you see blacks fighting blacks in America? No.

Yes. All the time. Individuals hate individuals, just as groups hate other groups.

Do you see whites fighting whites in America? No.

Yes. Never heard of the Civil War?

Do you see hispanics lighting the American flag on fire? Yes.

Not all of them do? I doubt even a majority does. I doubt a slim minority does. These are extremists, not really representative of the population at large.

Do you see French fighting Muslims in France? Yes. And yes, there may be more violence. But, if the Muslims' weren't there in the first place, then the problems wouldn't exist.

Or, if France had a civic nationalist government, the stupidity of the Gaullist governments there, and the pure stubbornness of the ideologues in France would change, and guarantee all citizens rights. I think the idea is not to segregate, as that is just denying the chance for what humans all want; social interaction. You need to find a system that recognizes the fact that everyone has rights, and we can figure out a way to make sure both sides of a conflict are happy, without resorting to violence or any other form of coercion.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:41:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 2:46:23 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/16/2009 2:31:10 PM, Volkov wrote:

So, the minorities that come to the country for a better life are just left out?

Yes.

And I wouldn't say that people "like each other more" - if you're different, you're bad. Its clear as well that everyone is different, and if the government and society doesn't address such a fact, then you're heading for problems.

If everyone speaks the same language and has the same religion and is the same color, than people aren't going to be racist. Which is why ethnic nationalism is better. It creates much less problems.

I'll use France as another example. Ethnic nationalism is the mainstream idea there, and the racism, the sexism, the pure discrimination based on any difference imaginable is so evident and affects so much, it shuts down entire cities. I think this promotes more rigid, stubborn ideologues that do not compromise and create such a situation where the ball gets rolling towards violence.

Which is why pure ethnic nationalism is needed. The discrimination is mostly towards Muslims, who speak a different language, are different colors, have a radically different religion, and just live a radically different life. If everyone was the same, the discrimination wouldn't exist.

So Nags, let me get this right. You're arguing for segregation at a national level but saying discrimination is bad?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:42:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nags wrote:
Which is why pure ethnic nationalism is needed. The discrimination is mostly towards Muslims, who speak a different language, are different colors, have a radically different religion, and just live a radically different life. If everyone was the same, the discrimination wouldn't exist.

Isn't that a socialist idea? XD
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:54:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:42:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
Nags wrote:
Which is why pure ethnic nationalism is needed. The discrimination is mostly towards Muslims, who speak a different language, are different colors, have a radically different religion, and just live a radically different life. If everyone was the same, the discrimination wouldn't exist.

Isn't that a socialist idea? XD

Hell no, not any form of socialism I would support anyway.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:58:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:54:14 PM, feverish wrote:
Hell no, not any form of socialism I would support anyway.

True, true. It is probably closer to communism than socialism.

Everyone must be the same. Everyone must own the same property. Everyone must revel in the sameness. Etc.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:09:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:40:13 PM, Volkov wrote:

I always figured you were pro-globalization. Or is this just a thought exercise?

I am. With regards to free trade and business. I am just for protected borders.

Protectionism is bad. Trade is good, as trade promotes free markets and business growth, as well as better labour opportunities.

I never called for protectionism. I am all for the free flow of goods, just not the free flow of people.

It is anti-freedom of movement in a way, as you're denying others the rights to come into your country. It isn't anti-freedom of movement in terms of domestic rights, but it is in human rights and international law.

Yup.

So? Afraid of something?

Yes. Seeing as how they behave right now, their relucatance to learn the English language, and Home Country Nationalism (ie. Mexico or Brazil).

It's happened and has threatened to happen several times. My friend has been in Paris right on the verge of a threatened strike of city workers, and her family had to ship her out of there because they warned that water, electricity, transportation, even the local government, could shut down completely because of it.

Because of an ethnicity problem..?

Yes. All the time. Individuals hate individuals, just as groups hate other groups.

They aren't attacking each other because of ethnicity though.

Yes. Never heard of the Civil War?

I could've sworn we were talking about present day. Unless, we are talking about the mid 1800s...

Not all of them do? I doubt even a majority does. I doubt a slim minority does. These are extremists, not really representative of the population at large.

I went to a public middle school filled with hispanics and brazilians. They had a strong dislike of America. They loved their home country though.

Or, if France had a civic nationalist government, the stupidity of the Gaullist governments there, and the pure stubbornness of the ideologues in France would change, and guarantee all citizens rights. I think the idea is not to segregate, as that is just denying the chance for what humans all want; social interaction. You need to find a system that recognizes the fact that everyone has rights, and we can figure out a way to make sure both sides of a conflict are happy, without resorting to violence or any other form of coercion.

Doesn't change the fact that if the Muslims weren't there, the problem wouldn't exist.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:12:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:41:03 PM, feverish wrote:
So Nags, let me get this right. You're arguing for segregation at a national level but saying discrimination is bad?

Not segregation, but strong borders. I don't think discrimination is bad either. It may be bad for a country's welfare, but I don't have anything against people who discriminate.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:17:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:58:37 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/16/2009 3:54:14 PM, feverish wrote:
Hell no, not any form of socialism I would support anyway.

True, true. It is probably closer to communism than socialism.

Everyone must be the same. Everyone must own the same property. Everyone must revel in the sameness. Etc.

- I am talking about ethnicity, nothing else.

- Keep in mind I am being theoretical here. I don't want segregation at all, I am strongly against it. I am just saying that one ethnicity = virtually no problems (no country on Earth). Multiple ethnicities (USA) = multiple problems. Radically different ethnicities (French vs. Muslims) = violence.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:24:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 4:09:04 PM, Nags wrote:
I never called for protectionism. I am all for the free flow of goods, just not the free flow of people.

They go hand-in-hand. The ability for immigrants to come to another country increases not only productivity, but the chance for sale to occur.

For example, in China there is a market in some cities, specifically housing African traders to come in and sell their wares, as well as contract and transport Chinese goods back to Africa. This benefits the Chinese well, as the Africans from these local countries know what their countries want and need; they understand the market. The Chinese do not have such insider knowledge, and rely on these traders to improve the productivity at home, due to the increased trade.

Hand-in-hand.

Yes. Seeing as how they behave right now, their relucatance to learn the English language, and Home Country Nationalism (ie. Mexico or Brazil).

If you allowed them the proper opportunity and respect under law and society to practice their own religion or celebrate their own culture or have the ability to speak their own language without the huge pressure placed on them to learn English, you will find that they become more open to integrate into society, become a working part of it, all the while being enabled to retain their heritage. It seems to work well for Canada, no reason it should not in the US.

Because of an ethnicity problem..?

Not necessarily because of an ethnicity problem, it was due to the political and economic differences between two groups. The government was stubborn and refused to budge; the reaction was clear.

But, I'm sure you've seen the Paris riots over ethnicity, as well as in other French cities. The damage is huge, and the costs to individuals can be even greater.

They aren't attacking each other because of ethnicity though.

They are attacking based on identity. It doesn't necessarily have to be about strict ethnicity, by the way if you belong to the Crips, you're going to get attacked by the Bloods. It works on a larger, more national scale as well.

I could've sworn we were talking about present day. Unless, we are talking about the mid 1800s...

It is the best example of Caucasian violence in the US, regardless of when it was. Lets remember that groups will attack people just based on them saying "Confederates suck."

I went to a public middle school filled with hispanics and brazilians. They had a strong dislike of America. They loved their home country though.

I went to a public middle school filled with Indians and other South Asian ethnics. I was the minority, actually.

They loved their home countries, and they loved their heritage, but they loved Canada as well. I met the parents of some of these kids, and I remember seeing a huge picture of our Prime Minister at the time in their den. They had a Canadian flag in their car window, on the dashboard.

Why is this I wonder? What is with the difference?

Doesn't change the fact that if the Muslims weren't there, the problem wouldn't exist.

The Muslims are there though, and you can't change that fact now, unless you want to violate the rights of millions of individuals.

Lets not forget what happened the last time a European country got really riled up over their ethnicity. They wanted to save the rest of their kind from other countries, and then they wanted to oppress and literally eliminate the difference peoples within their own country, and then they went on and tried to wipe out and assimilate all the other countries surrounding it.

I'm not saying this will happen again, but it is clear that promoting ethnic nationalism is countries where the reality is that not everyone subscribes to the same identity - be it ethnic, political, or societal - is a bad, bad idea.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:35:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 4:12:37 PM, Nags wrote:
I don't have anything against people who discriminate.

I do and I discriminate against them on account of it. ;)
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:35:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 4:24:54 PM, Volkov wrote:

For example, in China there is a market in some cities...

Sure, that works in China. But, how many Mexican traders are there that benefit the U.S.? None really, none at all.

If you allowed them the proper opportunity and respect under law and society...

Canada is dealing with a small fraction of (illegal) immigrants that the US is dealing with. Our immigrants are uneducated and unappreciative. That's just the way it is.

I went to a public middle school filled with Indians and other South Asian ethnics. I was the minority, actually.

They loved their home countries, and they loved their heritage, but they loved Canada as well. I met the parents of some of these kids, and I remember seeing a huge picture of our Prime Minister at the time in their den. They had a Canadian flag in their car window, on the dashboard.

Why is this I wonder? What is with the difference?

Your immigrants are not hispanic. There were so many Mexican and Brazlian flags/shirts/general pride in my school it was ridiculous.

The Muslims are there though, and you can't change that fact now, unless you want to violate the rights of millions of individuals.

The influx of Muslims can still be stopped with strengthened borders though.

Lets not forget what happened the last time a European country got really riled up over their ethnicity. They wanted to save the rest of their kind from other countries, and then they wanted to oppress and literally eliminate the difference peoples within their own country, and then they went on and tried to wipe out and assimilate all the other countries surrounding it.

I'm not saying this will happen again, but it is clear that promoting ethnic nationalism is countries where the reality is that not everyone subscribes to the same identity - be it ethnic, political, or societal - is a bad, bad idea.

Keep in mind, I never called for violence or segregation. I simply call for strong borders. A border fence would be more than adequate.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:37:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 4:35:04 PM, feverish wrote:
At 8/16/2009 4:12:37 PM, Nags wrote:
I don't have anything against people who discriminate.

I do and I discriminate against them on account of it. ;)

That's fine, I have no problem with that. It is simply human nature to discriminate, that is why I am not against it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 4:45:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 4:35:58 PM, Nags wrote:
Sure, that works in China. But, how many Mexican traders are there that benefit the U.S.? None really, none at all.

Really? So you assume all those tourist bureaus, the Mexican contractors trying to build in their country, trying to sell their cheap products in the US, do not benefit the US, themselves, or anyone? I mean, somehow that entire idea of transportation between the US and Mexico, and Canada as well, is suddenly not needed, simply because having Mexicans or French Canadians enter the US is detrimental?

Canada is dealing with a small fraction of (illegal) immigrants that the US is dealing with. Our immigrants are uneducated and unappreciative. That's just the way it is.

We have, by large, a much, much more fractured population than the US does, both historically and right now. I assume you never heard of that entire idea about Quebec separating from the entire country? Never heard of the fact that both Toronto and Vancouver have nearly 50% minority populations, yet have much, much lower crime rates than most US cities of the same size, or bigger?

Yet, somehow we actually seem to respect and work together, without resorting to violence. Interesting.

Your immigrants are not hispanic. There were so many Mexican and Brazlian flags/shirts/general pride in my school it was ridiculous.

So? What is wrong with pride? And how are Indians, Sikhs, Jamaicans, Haitians, Quebecois, Scots, Irish, French, Chinese, Indonesians and the other 100+ some-odd groups that exist within Toronto alone, including Hispanics and Brazilians, not as "prideful" or belligerent as yours are?

The influx of Muslims can still be stopped with strengthened borders though.

Why though? There is no need to stop when you can mediate; fix the problems, address the issues, and give them freedom, and the problems won't be as bad.

Keep in mind, I never called for violence or segregation. I simply call for strong borders. A border fence would be more than adequate.

I'm against border fences on the grounds that it is very discriminatory, and very ineffective. I mean really; you think those that are very determined to get in the US will let a fence, funnily built by their own labour, will stop them?

And while you never called for segregation, it is the idea that is floating in behind it all. It is clear where this is heading.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 3:07:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/17/2009 10:49:45 AM, regebro wrote:
Civic vs. Ethnic Nationalism

Dumb vs dumber.

And that's all there is to say there.

Are you an anarchist then? Or do you not understand the terms. Because it seems to be one of the two.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 4:52:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
He could also be a feudalist, or an advocate of city-states, or of one-world government. All operate on different grounds than the nation-state.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 4:58:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/17/2009 4:52:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He could also be a feudalist, or an advocate of city-states, or of one-world government. All operate on different grounds than the nation-state.

True, though from the posts of his I've seen, that isn't the case.

Besides, "nation-state" is a term considered for ethnic nationalist states. "State-nation" is another term for civic nationalist.

I would love to see a feudalist on this website though.