Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prospective Nation

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:23:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm going to give a hypothetical nation outline and ask that members describe the said "nation."

In the year 2017, the US Federal government collapses under its own inefficiency. Over the next several months, State and local governments soon collapse, since they are mostly just pawns of the Federal government and not really able to survive on their own.

This leaves the American people in a state on Anarchy. Some areas embrace the anarchy and try to make it work for them, others form their own governments. This is going to be about one government that forms and none of the others.

In the Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho, and Western Montana a government formed which first isolates itself, with the goals getting established and up on its feet before opening back up to the world.

Over the period of isolation, a social culture culture forms. Due to the isolation, it is a unique culture. The people of the nation form a pride of there unique national culture, and so the government seeks to maintain that culture upon opening back up.

One of the requirements of immigration, is for foreigners to abandon their previous culture and openly embrace the culture of this new nation. Any foreigners that don't do this are promptly deported.

Now, given that this started in WA/ID/MT, the population is 98.8% white (or somewhere in that ballpark).

While being "white" is not a requirement to become a citizen, embracing the culture is.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 2:21:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you want us to invent what the country would be like, or interpret what the country would be like?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 2:31:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You know, we should have collapsed this broken crony system in 1940 if it were not for that bastage in Germany putting us on life support for another 50 years.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 9:49:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 2:21:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Do you want us to invent what the country would be like, or interpret what the country would be like?

Not much detail was given (I made this at night, typing with one hand, so I was being really short), but would the "nation" be considered a nationalist nation (based on its desire to maintain its culture, even though it never directly holds that its culture is superior, only that it is what it wants to keep)?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 10:18:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:23:09 AM, OreEle wrote:
I'm going to give a hypothetical nation outline and ask that members describe the said "nation."

In the year 2017, the US Federal government collapses under its own inefficiency. Over the next several months, State and local governments soon collapse, since they are mostly just pawns of the Federal government and not really able to survive on their own.

This leaves the American people in a state on Anarchy. Some areas embrace the anarchy and try to make it work for them, others form their own governments. This is going to be about one government that forms and none of the others.

In the Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho, and Western Montana a government formed which first isolates itself, with the goals getting established and up on its feet before opening back up to the world.

Over the period of isolation, a social culture culture forms. Due to the isolation, it is a unique culture. The people of the nation form a pride of there unique national culture, and so the government seeks to maintain that culture upon opening back up.

One of the requirements of immigration, is for foreigners to abandon their previous culture and openly embrace the culture of this new nation. Any foreigners that don't do this are promptly deported.

Now, given that this started in WA/ID/MT, the population is 98.8% white (or somewhere in that ballpark).

While being "white" is not a requirement to become a citizen, embracing the culture is.

If it is rich, people will get into the country. Legally or illegally. Rich people are notorious for wanting cheap labor and are highly reluctant to do said labor themselves, and thus will try to get "poor" people into the country for providing that labor.

Once that happens, after a while, there'll be a sufficient number of people from other cultures to maintain their culture in this new country.

So that is the primary goal of the new "nation" scuppered. Rest of the things will happen as how the resources stack up in the country and how it trades with other countries, and is too general/specific to elaborate.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 12:03:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 9:49:38 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 7/15/2011 2:21:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Do you want us to invent what the country would be like, or interpret what the country would be like?

Not much detail was given (I made this at night, typing with one hand, so I was being really short), but would the "nation" be considered a nationalist nation (based on its desire to maintain its culture, even though it never directly holds that its culture is superior, only that it is what it wants to keep)?

Well firstly it would depend on the international culture as it were, if the world was screwed over as well then most nations would probably turn a little towards nationalism so this behaviour would not be seen as odd. As it's not racially based the nation you propose might even seem liberal.

Also you have not said how stringent these rules are, to what extent does a prospective immigrant have to embrace the culture? Do they simply have to learn the language, national dress, convert?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 12:32:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 12:03:55 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 9:49:38 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 7/15/2011 2:21:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Do you want us to invent what the country would be like, or interpret what the country would be like?

Not much detail was given (I made this at night, typing with one hand, so I was being really short), but would the "nation" be considered a nationalist nation (based on its desire to maintain its culture, even though it never directly holds that its culture is superior, only that it is what it wants to keep)?

Well firstly it would depend on the international culture as it were, if the world was screwed over as well then most nations would probably turn a little towards nationalism so this behaviour would not be seen as odd. As it's not racially based the nation you propose might even seem liberal.

Also you have not said how stringent these rules are, to what extent does a prospective immigrant have to embrace the culture? Do they simply have to learn the language, national dress, convert?

I'd say strict cultural adjustment. There would be no such thing as "china town," or "little tokyo" or any other groupings of seperate cultures. Such attempts to form that would be viewed attempts to bring in outside cultures and a refusal to embrace the existing culture.

Foriegn holidays, while allowed to be observed by individuals in their own homes, are not allowed to have large public displays, nor officially recognized by the state.

Basically, what I'm trying to do is setup a nation and make it as nationalistic as possible without it getting racist.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 12:45:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 12:32:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:03:55 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 9:49:38 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 7/15/2011 2:21:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Do you want us to invent what the country would be like, or interpret what the country would be like?

Not much detail was given (I made this at night, typing with one hand, so I was being really short), but would the "nation" be considered a nationalist nation (based on its desire to maintain its culture, even though it never directly holds that its culture is superior, only that it is what it wants to keep)?

Well firstly it would depend on the international culture as it were, if the world was screwed over as well then most nations would probably turn a little towards nationalism so this behaviour would not be seen as odd. As it's not racially based the nation you propose might even seem liberal.

Also you have not said how stringent these rules are, to what extent does a prospective immigrant have to embrace the culture? Do they simply have to learn the language, national dress, convert?

I'd say strict cultural adjustment. There would be no such thing as "china town," or "little tokyo" or any other groupings of seperate cultures. Such attempts to form that would be viewed attempts to bring in outside cultures and a refusal to embrace the existing culture.

Foriegn holidays, while allowed to be observed by individuals in their own homes, are not allowed to have large public displays, nor officially recognized by the state.

Basically, what I'm trying to do is setup a nation and make it as nationalistic as possible without it getting racist.

In a way you need to replace race with something else or multiple things, be it religion, extreme atheism, communism, loyalty to the leader.

But it is certainly possible to have a nationalist state that is not based on racism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 12:53:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 12:45:00 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:32:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:03:55 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 9:49:38 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 7/15/2011 2:21:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Do you want us to invent what the country would be like, or interpret what the country would be like?

Not much detail was given (I made this at night, typing with one hand, so I was being really short), but would the "nation" be considered a nationalist nation (based on its desire to maintain its culture, even though it never directly holds that its culture is superior, only that it is what it wants to keep)?

Well firstly it would depend on the international culture as it were, if the world was screwed over as well then most nations would probably turn a little towards nationalism so this behaviour would not be seen as odd. As it's not racially based the nation you propose might even seem liberal.

Also you have not said how stringent these rules are, to what extent does a prospective immigrant have to embrace the culture? Do they simply have to learn the language, national dress, convert?

I'd say strict cultural adjustment. There would be no such thing as "china town," or "little tokyo" or any other groupings of seperate cultures. Such attempts to form that would be viewed attempts to bring in outside cultures and a refusal to embrace the existing culture.

Foriegn holidays, while allowed to be observed by individuals in their own homes, are not allowed to have large public displays, nor officially recognized by the state.

Basically, what I'm trying to do is setup a nation and make it as nationalistic as possible without it getting racist.

In a way you need to replace race with something else or multiple things, be it religion, extreme atheism, communism, loyalty to the leader.

But it is certainly possible to have a nationalist state that is not based on racism.

Of course, but I'm trying to get a culture, created by white people, and so viewed as a white culture, that allows non-whites to participate, so long as they embrace the [white] culture.

Though if it is called "white culture" or "caucasian culture" or "arayian culture" or "wanaho culture" (wannaho, derived from washington, montana, and idaho, lol). Does it make a difference what its name is?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:02:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 12:53:47 PM, OreEle wrote:

Of course, but I'm trying to get a culture, created by white people, and so viewed as a white culture, that allows non-whites to participate, so long as they embrace the [white] culture.

Though if it is called "white culture" or "caucasian culture" or "arayian culture" or "wanaho culture" (wannaho, derived from washington, montana, and idaho, lol). Does it make a difference what its name is?

It's contextual. Objectively it might not be seen as racist, subjectively if the country refers to itself as having a 'white' culture, is 99% white, is seen turning away black immigrants who don't adapt, and for the sake of argument is bordered by a hostile 'black' state then it will be seen as racist.

What I am intrigued by is what this wanaho culture will be, what changes will an immigrant have to adopt.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:12:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:02:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:53:47 PM, OreEle wrote:

Of course, but I'm trying to get a culture, created by white people, and so viewed as a white culture, that allows non-whites to participate, so long as they embrace the [white] culture.

Though if it is called "white culture" or "caucasian culture" or "arayian culture" or "wanaho culture" (wannaho, derived from washington, montana, and idaho, lol). Does it make a difference what its name is?

It's contextual. Objectively it might not be seen as racist, subjectively if the country refers to itself as having a 'white' culture, is 99% white, is seen turning away black immigrants who don't adapt, and for the sake of argument is bordered by a hostile 'black' state then it will be seen as racist.

What I am intrigued by is what this wanaho culture will be, what changes will an immigrant have to adopt.

Exact changes, I can't really say, since that would require actually pinning down the culture that forms.

But one thing we can see is that Mexico has a different culture than Canada, which has a different culture than China, which is different from South Africa. To move in, one would have to leave their past culture behind and not try to bring it in with them (so it is anti-multicultural).

Regarding turning away blacks that won't adopt, they would. However the reason would be the lack of adoption, rather than them being black, as they would turn away Asians, Mexicans, and even White Europeans that don't adopt the new culture. Does it matter if they call it "white culture" vs "wanaho culture" if the only difference is in the name?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 1:18:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 1:12:37 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 7/15/2011 1:02:05 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:53:47 PM, OreEle wrote:

Of course, but I'm trying to get a culture, created by white people, and so viewed as a white culture, that allows non-whites to participate, so long as they embrace the [white] culture.

Though if it is called "white culture" or "caucasian culture" or "arayian culture" or "wanaho culture" (wannaho, derived from washington, montana, and idaho, lol). Does it make a difference what its name is?

It's contextual. Objectively it might not be seen as racist, subjectively if the country refers to itself as having a 'white' culture, is 99% white, is seen turning away black immigrants who don't adapt, and for the sake of argument is bordered by a hostile 'black' state then it will be seen as racist.

What I am intrigued by is what this wanaho culture will be, what changes will an immigrant have to adopt.

Exact changes, I can't really say, since that would require actually pinning down the culture that forms.

But one thing we can see is that Mexico has a different culture than Canada, which has a different culture than China, which is different from South Africa. To move in, one would have to leave their past culture behind and not try to bring it in with them (so it is anti-multicultural).

Regarding turning away blacks that won't adopt, they would. However the reason would be the lack of adoption, rather than them being black, as they would turn away Asians, Mexicans, and even White Europeans that don't adopt the new culture. Does it matter if they call it "white culture" vs "wanaho culture" if the only difference is in the name?

Yes... because people are stupid.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 3:23:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 12:32:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Basically, what I'm trying to do is setup a nation and make it as nationalistic as possible without it getting racist.

See Roman Empire.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 3:12:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 12:53:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:45:00 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:32:15 PM, OreEle wrote:


Basically, what I'm trying to do is setup a nation and make it as nationalistic as possible without it getting racist.

In a way you need to replace race with something else or multiple things, be it religion, extreme atheism, communism, loyalty to the leader.

But it is certainly possible to have a nationalist state that is not based on racism.

Of course, but I'm trying to get a culture, created by white people, and so viewed as a white culture, that allows non-whites to participate, so long as they embrace the [white] culture.

Though if it is called "white culture" or "caucasian culture" or "arayian culture" or "wanaho culture" (wannaho, derived from washington, montana, and idaho, lol). Does it make a difference what its name is?

Yes. If you're defining the culture in terms of race, which is the only thing "white" can mean in this context, and restricting people of "non-white" culture then it's racist.

In fact the only one of those four cultural labels that wouldn't be racist in the context of moulding a nation is wanaho.

If a new culture springs up that happens to be 99% white, it will need to identify itself on some specific thing other than race. Obviously there will exist plenty of other white majority nations, so how can make it's claim of cultural individuality on the basis of race alone?

There has to be some other thing to hold the culture together and distinguish it other than race if you don't want it to be racist. National cultures =/= divisions of race.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 3:41:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 3:12:05 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:53:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:45:00 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:32:15 PM, OreEle wrote:


Basically, what I'm trying to do is setup a nation and make it as nationalistic as possible without it getting racist.

In a way you need to replace race with something else or multiple things, be it religion, extreme atheism, communism, loyalty to the leader.

But it is certainly possible to have a nationalist state that is not based on racism.

Of course, but I'm trying to get a culture, created by white people, and so viewed as a white culture, that allows non-whites to participate, so long as they embrace the [white] culture.

Though if it is called "white culture" or "caucasian culture" or "arayian culture" or "wanaho culture" (wannaho, derived from washington, montana, and idaho, lol). Does it make a difference what its name is?

Yes. If you're defining the culture in terms of race, which is the only thing "white" can mean in this context, and restricting people of "non-white" culture then it's racist.

In fact the only one of those four cultural labels that wouldn't be racist in the context of moulding a nation is wanaho.

If a new culture springs up that happens to be 99% white, it will need to identify itself on some specific thing other than race. Obviously there will exist plenty of other white majority nations, so how can make it's claim of cultural individuality on the basis of race alone?

There has to be some other thing to hold the culture together and distinguish it other than race if you don't want it to be racist. National cultures =/= divisions of race.

But how does saying some place has "asian culture" or "african culture" any different from saying something has "white sulture"?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 3:57:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 3:41:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

But how does saying some place has "asian culture" or "african culture" any different from saying something has "white sulture"?

Well all three are such broad generalisations as to be completely meaningless anyway. Nigerians don't all have the same culture as Libyans, in fact within those artificial nations that make up all of Africa, many different cultures exist side by side. Similarly, Japanese culture is not identical to Indian culture, although both countries are in Asia, and of course (predominantly white) English culture is not identical to (predominantly white) German culture.

But even disregarding all of the above, surely you can see the difference between defining culture based on geography and defining culture based on complexion.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:01:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 3:57:36 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:41:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

But how does saying some place has "asian culture" or "african culture" any different from saying something has "white sulture"?

Well all three are such broad generalisations as to be completely meaningless anyway. Nigerians don't all have the same culture as Libyans, in fact within those artificial nations that make up all of Africa, many different cultures exist side by side. Similarly, Japanese culture is not identical to Indian culture, although both countries are in Asia, and of course (predominantly white) English culture is not identical to (predominantly white) German culture.

But even disregarding all of the above, surely you can see the difference between defining culture based on geography and defining culture based on complexion.

"white" and "asian" are both classified as races. "asian" is not exclusively geographical location, but the "race" that developed there.

As with "african."

When surveys ask for race, they don't ask "are you white, black, brown, yellow, red, tan, or other?" They ask "are you white, asian, hispanic, african-american, native-american, or other?"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:01:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:57:36 PM, feverish wrote:

"white" and "asian" are both classified as races. "asian" is not exclusively geographical location, but the "race" that developed there.

As with "african."

When surveys ask for race, they don't ask "are you white, black, brown, yellow, red, tan, or other?" They ask "are you white, asian, hispanic, african-american, native-american, or other?"

Well getting into the semantics of racial terms just reveals the BS that undermines these systems of classification even more.

There is more genetic variance between certain groups of Africans than there is between most Africans and most non-Africans. All people alive have ancestors from Africa. How can African be a race? It's just as much of a nonsense term in that context as white or black really.

In the UK, and perhaps throughout Europe, the term "Asian" generally refers to South Asia, Pakistan, India etc. and traditionally East Asian people would be referred to as Oriental. Assuming you believe that people can be parceled into neat little boxes of race, do you think Japanese and Indian people are the same race?

Anyway, all this detracts from the central issue that defining the culture of your nation in racial terms and restricting or evicting people on account of it is inherently racist.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:29:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:22:32 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:01:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:57:36 PM, feverish wrote:

"white" and "asian" are both classified as races. "asian" is not exclusively geographical location, but the "race" that developed there.

As with "african."

When surveys ask for race, they don't ask "are you white, black, brown, yellow, red, tan, or other?" They ask "are you white, asian, hispanic, african-american, native-american, or other?"

Well getting into the semantics of racial terms just reveals the BS that undermines these systems of classification even more.

There is more genetic variance between certain groups of Africans than there is between most Africans and most non-Africans. All people alive have ancestors from Africa. How can African be a race? It's just as much of a nonsense term in that context as white or black really.

In the UK, and perhaps throughout Europe, the term "Asian" generally refers to South Asia, Pakistan, India etc. and traditionally East Asian people would be referred to as Oriental. Assuming you believe that people can be parceled into neat little boxes of race, do you think Japanese and Indian people are the same race?

Anyway, all this detracts from the central issue that defining the culture of your nation in racial terms and restricting or evicting people on account of it is inherently racist.

But no one would be restricted or evicted in terms of "race" but in terms of acceptance of the culture.

So if they call it a "Wanaho culture" as opposed to a "white culture" or a "caucasian culture" or an "aryan culture" or whatever else, what difference does that really make? As being that it is originally a culture derived from 99% "white" people, other nations will view it as a "white culture" despite what its name is, will they not?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:44:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:29:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

But no one would be restricted or evicted in terms of "race" but in terms of acceptance of the culture.

So if they call it a "Wanaho culture" as opposed to a "white culture" or a "caucasian culture" or an "aryan culture" or whatever else, what difference does that really make? As being that it is originally a culture derived from 99% "white" people, other nations will view it as a "white culture" despite what its name is, will they not?

It makes a difference to whether it is inherently racist. A distinct culture that just so happens to be homogenous in terms of perceptions of race, is not automatically racist, but a culture that is based entirely on racial identity almost certainly is.

The Private Nationalist State Of Wanaho might be racist, might not be.
The Culturally White Restricted Nation of Aryanism definitely would be.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:09:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:44:54 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:29:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

But no one would be restricted or evicted in terms of "race" but in terms of acceptance of the culture.

So if they call it a "Wanaho culture" as opposed to a "white culture" or a "caucasian culture" or an "aryan culture" or whatever else, what difference does that really make? As being that it is originally a culture derived from 99% "white" people, other nations will view it as a "white culture" despite what its name is, will they not?

It makes a difference to whether it is inherently racist. A distinct culture that just so happens to be homogenous in terms of perceptions of race, is not automatically racist, but a culture that is based entirely on racial identity almost certainly is.

The Private Nationalist State Of Wanaho might be racist, might not be.
The Culturally White Restricted Nation of Aryanism definitely would be.

But if the CWRNA (Culturally White Restricted Nation of Aryanism) maintained the immigration policies listed above (that focus on culture, not skin color), does the name make any difference?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:45:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 5:09:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

But if the CWRNA (Culturally White Restricted Nation of Aryanism) maintained the immigration policies listed above (that focus on culture, not skin color), does the name make any difference?

If the name means what it says and implies then yes it makes a difference.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:16:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 5:45:28 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:09:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

But if the CWRNA (Culturally White Restricted Nation of Aryanism) maintained the immigration policies listed above (that focus on culture, not skin color), does the name make any difference?

If the name means what it says and implies then yes it makes a difference.

But it doesn't mean what it implies, it means what was stated before.

They may recognize it as a "white" culture, but if you put 1,000 men together in a small town (with no women), what would pop up would be considered a male culture. And if you put 1,000 women together in a small town, a female culture would arrise. That is not to say that every male culture or female culture is going to look the same, but those would, logically, fall under those classifications.

And if you did the same with 1,000 asians, or 1,000 africans, or 1,000 native americans, it would not be wrong to understand that the culture that pops up is somehow linked to that common trait. So what is wrong about applying the same logic to a bunch of white people forming a white culture?

No where do they put immigration limits based on skin color, or nationality, or race. But only on the acceptance of their culture.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:19:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Did Europe historically have a culture that called itself a "White" culture? No, they called their cultures "Danish" or whatever. If nonracist, this country would say it has a "Northwestern" culture or something.
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.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:41:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 3:41:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:12:05 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:53:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:45:00 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:32:15 PM, OreEle wrote:


Basically, what I'm trying to do is setup a nation and make it as nationalistic as possible without it getting racist.

In a way you need to replace race with something else or multiple things, be it religion, extreme atheism, communism, loyalty to the leader.

But it is certainly possible to have a nationalist state that is not based on racism.

Of course, but I'm trying to get a culture, created by white people, and so viewed as a white culture, that allows non-whites to participate, so long as they embrace the [white] culture.

Though if it is called "white culture" or "caucasian culture" or "arayian culture" or "wanaho culture" (wannaho, derived from washington, montana, and idaho, lol). Does it make a difference what its name is?

Yes. If you're defining the culture in terms of race, which is the only thing "white" can mean in this context, and restricting people of "non-white" culture then it's racist.

In fact the only one of those four cultural labels that wouldn't be racist in the context of moulding a nation is wanaho.

If a new culture springs up that happens to be 99% white, it will need to identify itself on some specific thing other than race. Obviously there will exist plenty of other white majority nations, so how can make it's claim of cultural individuality on the basis of race alone?

There has to be some other thing to hold the culture together and distinguish it other than race if you don't want it to be racist. National cultures =/= divisions of race.

But how does saying some place has "asian culture" or "african culture" any different from saying something has "white sulture"?

Asian culture is from Asia, African culture is from Africa, European culture is from Europe, this denotes cultures based upon areas of the world. White culture is from White people, Black culture is from Black people, this denotes culture based upon the race of individuals.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:42:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:19:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did Europe historically have a culture that called itself a "White" culture? No, they called their cultures "Danish" or whatever. If nonracist, this country would say it has a "Northwestern" culture or something.

Do you disagree that if you put 1,000 women together that they would form a "female" culture? Or do you think that is sexist?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:44:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:41:32 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:41:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:12:05 PM, feverish wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:53:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:45:00 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/15/2011 12:32:15 PM, OreEle wrote:


Basically, what I'm trying to do is setup a nation and make it as nationalistic as possible without it getting racist.

In a way you need to replace race with something else or multiple things, be it religion, extreme atheism, communism, loyalty to the leader.

But it is certainly possible to have a nationalist state that is not based on racism.

Of course, but I'm trying to get a culture, created by white people, and so viewed as a white culture, that allows non-whites to participate, so long as they embrace the [white] culture.

Though if it is called "white culture" or "caucasian culture" or "arayian culture" or "wanaho culture" (wannaho, derived from washington, montana, and idaho, lol). Does it make a difference what its name is?

Yes. If you're defining the culture in terms of race, which is the only thing "white" can mean in this context, and restricting people of "non-white" culture then it's racist.

In fact the only one of those four cultural labels that wouldn't be racist in the context of moulding a nation is wanaho.

If a new culture springs up that happens to be 99% white, it will need to identify itself on some specific thing other than race. Obviously there will exist plenty of other white majority nations, so how can make it's claim of cultural individuality on the basis of race alone?

There has to be some other thing to hold the culture together and distinguish it other than race if you don't want it to be racist. National cultures =/= divisions of race.

But how does saying some place has "asian culture" or "african culture" any different from saying something has "white sulture"?

Asian culture is from Asia, African culture is from Africa, European culture is from Europe, this denotes cultures based upon areas of the world. White culture is from White people, Black culture is from Black people, this denotes culture based upon the race of individuals.

And a male culture and female culture denotes culture based upon sexes. Unless the culture establishes itself as "superior," as opposed to only mentioning its origin, I don't see how any could be considered racist or sexist. Otherwise you are left with saying that "danish culture" is nationalist by nature.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:44:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:19:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did Europe historically have a culture that called itself a "White" culture? No, they called their cultures "Danish" or whatever. If nonracist, this country would say it has a "Northwestern" culture or something.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:48:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:42:00 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 6:19:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did Europe historically have a culture that called itself a "White" culture? No, they called their cultures "Danish" or whatever. If nonracist, this country would say it has a "Northwestern" culture or something.

Do you disagree that if you put 1,000 women together that they would form a "female" culture?
Yes. (Unless, of course, they set out to do precisely that). There's too much variety among females. They might form an Amazonian culture, or they might form a Cuddlanian culture.... :P
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.