Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Burning ghost »

Roel -

We're unlikely to see eye to eye.

There is a lot of propaganda out there. I prefer not to encourage it, but I more than likely do accidently.

Maybe you used to be like me, but there is not a lot that you've said to show you understand my position and I've not really stated one. I don't think it matters.

You'd like to hear what I think about Israel in what sense? It was a bad thign to place Jewish people where they did after wwII. I wouldn't be surprised if it was doen intentionally to gain a future foothold in that area. Another interesting fact is that the first nation to come up with the idea to chemically bomb the Kurds was the UK. They didn't do it because at the time they didn't have the technological know how.

"Terrorism" is label used by one side and "freedom fighters" are used on the other side. Israel has committed a number of international war crimes and committed acts of terror. So has the US and the UK. I am sure many more nations such as France and Germany have also played their part. I saw something recently about the friendliest people in the world. Top two were Iraqis and Afghans.

There is alqays hypocracy on both sides. Thebtrick is weighing both and understanding how it happens.

Red haired people are physically different not culturally different. Black white supremacists? Wouldn't surprise me if there are some mentally ill people out there ... I don't think singular instances give a broad enough picture. I would say that the overwhelming majority of white nationalists and white supremacists are actually white, not black or any other ethnicity.

Kublai Khan after conquering China basically was absorbed into the culture. Culture is not static.

There are things written in both the Koran and the Bible that go against modern western ideals. I don't hear you saying we should destroy Christian culture? Is Islam dangerous? No. People are dangerous. Religious institutions are quiet different from religion. Religious institutions are political. Like I said I am from the UK so I am used to secularism unlike the US where, what I consider, plainly stupid laws are held in place by religious institutions. Islam also has is political members pushing for political changes and changes in law. Islam as a whole is no more of a threat than any othrr religion, but the people running the institutions can be a threat. While on the subject I remember a few years back Jewish youths in Israel were clashing with police who were proecting the building of a mosque. These youths actually called their Jewish brothers and sisters in the police "Nazis". There are extreme deluded parties on all sides. Political agendas often use these extreme views to their advantage.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Roel
Posts: 365
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hegel

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Roel »

Alias wrote:
Roel wrote: North America was a melting pot from the start,
Which is what I referred to as the New World being made up of immigrants who should be allowed to invent a new, blended culture, instead of being locked into their grandfather's feuds, superstitions and preoccupations.
but I 'd prefer native American domination instead of Anglo-protestant.
Too late. I don't see how the numbers could work.
Preserving cultures and groups doesn't mean ghettos, you have villages staying homogenous while there is contact with the outside world....
Where?? Not in New York or Paris. Not anyplace a "developed nations or corporation wants to grow cattle, wheat or coffee, build a dam or airport, extract oil or bauxite, cut lumber, or spread its religious and economic empire.
If you find an uncontested nook, you may be able to keep anyone else from moving in, and prevent the villagers moving out, but how do you keep them from wanting things that people outside the village have? Like clothes, motorcycles and televisions?
Your suggestion of a Disney village shows sarcasm, I 'm not going to even respond to that.
How else do you reconstitute something that no longer exists in the real world? Jurassic Park. They won't like the glass walls, either.
What other solution do you suggest? We have fundamentally different opinions, you believe in a melting pot, I believe in the integrity of individual cultures, not only native European cultures, also others, and I don't believe in a static superiority of one culture. Cultures change, but that's different from disappearing in one big unified culture. There is globalism, but that doesn't mean that you should leave your own culture and let it be destroyed, just like in the Esperanto community you can use a global culture as "second vessel", a tool, but preserve your own.

-- Updated November 20th, 2016, 11:59 am to add the following --
Burning ghost wrote:Roel -

We're unlikely to see eye to eye.

There is a lot of propaganda out there. I prefer not to encourage it, but I more than likely do accidently.

Maybe you used to be like me, but there is not a lot that you've said to show you understand my position and I've not really stated one. I don't think it matters.

You'd like to hear what I think about Israel in what sense? It was a bad thign to place Jewish people where they did after wwII. I wouldn't be surprised if it was doen intentionally to gain a future foothold in that area. Another interesting fact is that the first nation to come up with the idea to chemically bomb the Kurds was the UK. They didn't do it because at the time they didn't have the technological know how.

"Terrorism" is label used by one side and "freedom fighters" are used on the other side. Israel has committed a number of international war crimes and committed acts of terror. So has the US and the UK. I am sure many more nations such as France and Germany have also played their part. I saw something recently about the friendliest people in the world. Top two were Iraqis and Afghans.

There is alqays hypocracy on both sides. Thebtrick is weighing both and understanding how it happens.

Red haired people are physically different not culturally different. Black white supremacists? Wouldn't surprise me if there are some mentally ill people out there ... I don't think singular instances give a broad enough picture. I would say that the overwhelming majority of white nationalists and white supremacists are actually white, not black or any other ethnicity.

Kublai Khan after conquering China basically was absorbed into the culture. Culture is not static.

There are things written in both the Koran and the Bible that go against modern western ideals. I don't hear you saying we should destroy Christian culture? Is Islam dangerous? No. People are dangerous. Religious institutions are quiet different from religion. Religious institutions are political. Like I said I am from the UK so I am used to secularism unlike the US where, what I consider, plainly stupid laws are held in place by religious institutions. Islam also has is political members pushing for political changes and changes in law. Islam as a whole is no more of a threat than any othrr religion, but the people running the institutions can be a threat. While on the subject I remember a few years back Jewish youths in Israel were clashing with police who were proecting the building of a mosque. These youths actually called their Jewish brothers and sisters in the police "Nazis". There are extreme deluded parties on all sides. Political agendas often use these extreme views to their advantage.
We seem to think different about things here and although I disagree with your opinion I will respect it, it is your free right to agree with a melting pot and disagree with me, but I personally prefer the preservation of cultures, people, and the different looks of people, which should be done with consideration of the rights of all and without hate.

What I mean is that in the past I thought nothing is wrong with multiculturalism, modern-day islam is just like any other religion, at a certain point you realize that there are serious fallacies in them and it isn't just all ok.

A fundamental difference between islam and other religions is that islam leaves much less space than other religions for free interpretation, one reason is that some subjects have Suras in the Quran with a more tolerant opinion, but only the last Sura of a subject should be followed, and these are often much more intolerant and hateful Suras, and despite certain good ethics which Muhammed spread, he was also a warlord, unlike Jesus, and his followers will be following the example of one. Also problematic is that he was married with a 9 years old, now I can understand that in his time this might have been normal, just like among the ancient Greeks, but in our modern age we developed enough moral to consider pedophilia as wrong, in islamic countries though, there are still young children marrying older men as it was normal for Muhammed.

Christianity adapted enough. Even though it has malicious influences in the US, nobody gets killed by law in the US because of christianity, but in islamic countries you can get killed by law because of islam, for being homosexual for example, being raped as a woman or for watching pornography.

As for Israel, I agree that there were interests for it as a western ally in the Middle East with big influence, and indeed the displacement of natives was and is wrong, they should have solved a jewish homeland better with respect of the rights of natives, but we can't change a lot about it anymore.

Islam doesn't need to go away or be destroyed, but it needs to drastically adapt itself to the modern age to continue its' existence.
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." - Friedrich Hegel
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Burning ghost »

Roel -

I would say the problem is the western world sticking its nose into other peoples business. The movie Team America World Police comes to mind.

Christianity has a long history of militant activity and the god in the old testament is not exactly passive. You are right though, Christianity has generally been "subdued". I see Islam, as many other social factors, as being dragged into a "modern" age.

By this I mean that maybe western society forgets the slow progression from religious rule to more secularist activity in politics (the US is still quite far behind in thus respect). Even so it is unreasonable to expect people to go from living in a world of relative "primitivity" (meaning available engineering and technological know how) into the "modern age". In the UK we went through an industrial revolution and the French revolution changed the face of our society in Europe in a very bloody manner. After this two world wars and only then do things like womens rights begin to have prominent visual impact. My mothers world was very different from my world and the changes in society has been gradual and full of different kinds of conflict.

A huge problem is that we are always partially blinded by our own position. We see the world through our eyes and attempt to see the world through the eyes of others. "Attempt" being the word that needs to be reframed by us as individuals to understand this as neither true nor false, but as a struggle of empathy for utterly alien and unknown positions.

In some countries merely 20-30 years ago most people were using bicycles not cars nor motorbikes, they had no internet and were lucky to have a TV too. My point being it is impossible for us to understand this level of dramatic change because in our experience such a stark change has never happened to us. Maybe the equivalent would be an alien race visiting Earth and giving us access to interstellar travel and conscious computers?

My main point against the idea of "white nationalism" is that "white" says nothing whatsoever about who the person is. An apparent "white" person may even have a black African great grandfather so it is a meaningless representation of the person. A white person may be racist, stupid, altruistic, insane, beautiful, thoughtful, violent or any other number of qualities. To say "white nationalism" is to create a superficial schism between people.

I do not think all Christians believe abortion is a sin. I do not think all muslims are terrorists. Honestly I think people who commit murder or tell women what to do with there bodies have no right to call themselves peace loving religious people. They can think it and question people and voice concerns by all means. To actively try and bend the rights and freedoms of others though is a basic wrong.

In todays world I feel the boundaries are becoming more blurry. Mass social media and its impact of politics is quite scary. It is like it is designed to make people stupid and reduce attention spans. That said I hope that people who use such mediums learn first hand how easily people misinterpret what they say rather than simply react in anger to misunderstanding, or at least learn how to phrase things in a better more conservative way to avoid misrepresentation.

Which bring me to the backlash against political correctness. Admittedly in some instances it has been taken to some extremes. This does not mean it is ridiculous and useless. Political correctness essentially means correct use of political communication in order to avoid coming across as some extremist by making sweeping staements. Political language needs to be thought out and considered for its political message and possible implications. Saying a few loose words can literally cause a phsyical fight.

A lot of political correctness has been about changing language and neutralising gender. I don't personally see the need for this and find saying "mankind" as being perfectly fine even though soem would suggest "humanity" as being a more neutral and genderless word to use. Ironically this use probably stems from the bible and the distinctions made made god creating man and women being a part of man. Evolution seems to say that both sexes existed as "one" and reproduction for life was intially asexual (anyway, I digress).

My concern is enforcement of stereotypical views. To put a blanket ban on muslims or to force muslims to be on a register is utterly ridiculous. Also, has anyone here actually researched exactly how thorough the vetting process already is? Has anyone researched how much money has been pumped into the Mexican border? I have seen some vert interesting articles on these subjects that show these areas are were already very thorough and that no matter what is done you cannot actually improve the systems much more other than by going to extreme, and mostly pointless and/or impractical, lengths.

The reality is dropping bombs on people and creating more fear does not help do anything other than fan the flames. Subversive governmental activities are becoming less and less hidden from public sight. The world is slowly becoming more aware of leaders saying one thing and doing another. This is countered by the media influence that caters ro base human nature and how humans react en mass to certain prompts. I used to watch the bbc with a very cynical eye. Watching how politics is handled in the US makes me believe I am watching Brasseye and then I have the sudden realisation that people take it seriously and that the people "reporting" the news and "interviewing" are not comedic actors and that this is not a satire but the mainstream media of what is considered the most powerful nation on Earth.

We have real cause for concern given the revolution of communications we are living in, and I would suggest now more than ever is a time for political correctness and deeply considered and guarded rhetoric in order to stop the world falling into a pit of petty bickering and bigotry.

Of course we find many tricky subjects within these areas. On ethat stucks out is parents who are deaf blocking surgery on their children to allow them to hear. This is a question of preserving a way of life and about individual rights. Does the government have the right to alter ahat they consider a birth "defect"? Do the parents habe the right to block surgery? In these areas we find conflict between these sides and while we may side with one view or another we will never fully understand both sides.

Focusing on the US the government needs to keep its nose out of the entertainment industry. The portrail of the military in the film industry is pure propaganda. The whole idea of a "Hollywood ending" seems to reflect a strange kind of national narcissicism. The chanting and cheerleading of ""USA! USA!" to my ears are quite vulgar.

All that said we can pick apart anu national attitude and find good and bad. I come the UK where we tend towards self cynicism is seems and so my view of the US is most likely taken in a more extreme manner because the US is abiut being a "winner". There is some veyr interesting points about this reflected upon by comedians from the US and the UK and the differences of these comedic traditions. Of course the US has a number of qualities that can be greatly admired too, probably more than I realise havinf never lived nor visited the coutry.

And can and will say again I am against any movement that has "white" placed alongside "nationalism". I am not against institutions that are created to adhere to ethnic equality and are against prejudices. In this respect I do understand that maybe many "white" people in the US feel left out due to empathasis on the "black", "asian" (both kinds) and "latino" minorities. Ethnicity is a topic that exists because historically it has had a huge cultural impact and obvious prejudices. It does not take a genius to realise that the bullied often become the bullies. What we need to be on guard about is bullying the bullies and continuing to fuel the cycle.

In regard to this we hear Kanye speaking out. I am not suggesting he is politically astute in any way. Chris Rock also did a whole routine about "******" in which he himself lookes at how playing the victim actually can fuel hatred and division (although his approach was comedic its impact was certainly noticed politically).

To sum up, humans are fascinatingly stupid and can also habe genuine moments of genius. I hope we'll have enough moments of genius to move forward and learn and love more. In some respects I do think we need weaknesses and stupidities in order to further our societal strength and progress our intelligence.

I am using language here and words. Understanding of the use of language is so important and habitual we often disregard its importance. That is what I remain vigilant against and that is why I err on the side of caution when I hear "white nationalism" as being remotely conaidered as "okay". It is not okay for me and it will never be okay for me. I understand certain levels of resistance to other cultures too. My point is thay ethnicity is circumstantial to cultural attitudes only.
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Fooloso4 »

This link and others containing the same video from a recent speech by Richard Spencer tells you why it is necessarily bad. Between what he says and his audiences behavior we see the kind of thing that not too long ago people said would never happen in the U.S.:

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/1 ... lfbcomment
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Alias »

Roel wrote: What other solution do you suggest?
None. I don't see a problem that requires a solution. Living things are born, live and die. Peoples, nations, cultures, civilizations arise, thrive for a while, decline and fade away. It's the nature of things. Nobody can make a dead man or a dead culture live again.
As far as I'm concerned, it's silly to try. And I don't understand why you'd want to.
Sure, some of the quaint customs are pretty or entertaining to look at - when you feel like a diversion from modern cosmopolitan life. But for the victims of ritual sacrifice, circumcision with a dirty thumb-nail, foot-binding, scarification or neck-stretching, the price is far too high.
We have fundamentally different opinions, you believe in a melting pot
Several melting pots. North and South America are the main ones. They were here long before I arrived. It's a fact - doesn't require believing-in. And it keep happening, generation by generation, in spite of the immigrant patriarchs' efforts to hold the young back from participating in the mainstream culture of their country. The only people who benefit from xenophobia are the holders of inherited - as distinct from earned - power.
I believe in the integrity of individual cultures, not only native European cultures, also others
Have you any empirical documentation, or just wishful thinking? No culture that's ever come into contact with another culture has retained its same identity. Five years after contact with British explorers, African natives were wearing tartan cloth. They just liked it. Five years after trade opened with China, the English made tea their national beverage. They just liked it. The Dutch didn't have any tulips until they came in from Turkey late in the 15th century.... but they really liked them.
,Cultures change, but that's different from disappearing in one big unified culture.
How is it different? Changes take place; the culture is not the same as it was a decade ago, quite different from what it was a century ago, and unrecognizable from the last millennium. And that's even without mixing or conquest or trade. If there is contact with the world, change happens faster and less predictably.
Unless you keep them behind iron curtains or terrified and superstitious, people will mix and adapt.
There is globalism, but that doesn't mean that you should leave your own culture and let it be destroyed, just like in the Esperanto community you can use a global culture as "second vessel", a tool, but preserve your own.
It's not a question of what you "should" do for your culture or what your culture "should" do for you. It's a good fit, or it isn't; it's viable or it isn't.
An Esperanto community, like a convent or nudist colony, can only be be artificially created. Certainly, a community that exists by choice can keep its integrity as long as enough people want it: people who like the idea can join, while people who are fed up can leave. That's quite different from an organic community that people are born into. Without force and fear, you can't keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree.
User avatar
Roel
Posts: 365
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hegel

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Roel »

Alias wrote:
Roel wrote: What other solution do you suggest?
None. I don't see a problem that requires a solution. Living things are born, live and die. Peoples, nations, cultures, civilizations arise, thrive for a while, decline and fade away. It's the nature of things. Nobody can make a dead man or a dead culture live again.
As far as I'm concerned, it's silly to try. And I don't understand why you'd want to.
Sure, some of the quaint customs are pretty or entertaining to look at - when you feel like a diversion from modern cosmopolitan life. But for the victims of ritual sacrifice, circumcision with a dirty thumb-nail, foot-binding, scarification or neck-stretching, the price is far too high.
We have fundamentally different opinions, you believe in a melting pot
Several melting pots. North and South America are the main ones. They were here long before I arrived. It's a fact - doesn't require believing-in. And it keep happening, generation by generation, in spite of the immigrant patriarchs' efforts to hold the young back from participating in the mainstream culture of their country. The only people who benefit from xenophobia are the holders of inherited - as distinct from earned - power.
I believe in the integrity of individual cultures, not only native European cultures, also others
Have you any empirical documentation, or just wishful thinking? No culture that's ever come into contact with another culture has retained its same identity. Five years after contact with British explorers, African natives were wearing tartan cloth. They just liked it. Five years after trade opened with China, the English made tea their national beverage. They just liked it. The Dutch didn't have any tulips until they came in from Turkey late in the 15th century.... but they really liked them.
,Cultures change, but that's different from disappearing in one big unified culture.
How is it different? Changes take place; the culture is not the same as it was a decade ago, quite different from what it was a century ago, and unrecognizable from the last millennium. And that's even without mixing or conquest or trade. If there is contact with the world, change happens faster and less predictably.
Unless you keep them behind iron curtains or terrified and superstitious, people will mix and adapt.
There is globalism, but that doesn't mean that you should leave your own culture and let it be destroyed, just like in the Esperanto community you can use a global culture as "second vessel", a tool, but preserve your own.
It's not a question of what you "should" do for your culture or what your culture "should" do for you. It's a good fit, or it isn't; it's viable or it isn't.
An Esperanto community, like a convent or nudist colony, can only be be artificially created. Certainly, a community that exists by choice can keep its integrity as long as enough people want it: people who like the idea can join, while people who are fed up can leave. That's quite different from an organic community that people are born into. Without force and fear, you can't keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree.
Good points. You say however that not wanting a melting pot is xenophobia. Not necessarily in my opinion. You can be very friendly to outsiders and although sticking together as a community without adapting to globalization, still be hospitable to guests. So I don't completely get your point why not wanting a melting pot would equal xenophobia.

I also believe that it is important to maintain for example the Welsh or Irish culture and language, they are important for researchers to study and a few of the last real Celts alive. I believe that artificially keeping those cultures alive is not bad, as they are very importang to Europe and the world.

Also the native Mongolian culture for example should be maintained somewhere.

You say that there is no problem, so do you suggest that native American reservations should be removed, as it's better for them to go in a melting pot? That is a complete disrespect of native American culture.
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." - Friedrich Hegel
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Alias »

Roel wrote: Good points. You say however that not wanting a melting pot is xenophobia.
I did not say that. What I said was that the immigrant nations of the Americas are already both cultural melting-pots and cultural mosaics. To try any kind of ethnic purging of these countries would require a very powerful and ruthless fascist regime. It would have to be xenophobic, and if that purge targeted specific groups for expulsion, it would be racist.
Trying to keep colonial subjects out of the countries that colonized them is likewise racist.. as well as futile. When France declared (unilaterally, of course) that Algeria was part of France, their motive might have been the free importation of cheap labour. too bad if it backfired
Keeping a monocultural, monoracial country's borders closed to all foreigners is xenophobic, but not necessarily racist.
Closing borders after a political upheaval, civil war or economic collapse might be neither.
Not necessarily in my opinion. You can be very friendly to outsiders and although sticking together as a community without adapting to globalization, still be hospitable to guests. So I don't completely get your point why not wanting a melting pot would equal xenophobia.
I did say, a while back, that old cultural traditions belong to the old country. I did not ask Japan to be a melting-pot, or Ethiopia, or Bali. Only that the transplanted Japanese, Ethiopians or Balinese not impose their old-country superstitions and customs on their American children, nor insist on special exemptions from obeying American laws. At the same time, none of them should be dispossessed, incarcerated or deprived of rights by the American government, simply for being Japanese, Ethiopian or Balinese.
This is pretty basic constitution/charter of rights stuff.
I also believe that it is important to maintain for example the Welsh or Irish culture and language,
Who should do the maintaining, at whose expense?
they are important for researchers to study and a few of the last real Celts alive. I believe that artificially keeping those cultures alive is not bad, as they are very importang to Europe and the world.
Do the Welsh and Irish get a vote? Or are they museum specimens? Lab rats? For whose benefit?
Also the native Mongolian culture for example should be maintained somewhere.
Where? On whose land/ under whose rule?
You say that there is no problem, so do you suggest that native American reservations should be removed, as it's better for them to go in a melting pot? That is a complete disrespect of native American culture.
They were invaded by the malting-pot. Reservations were not their idea nor their choice; it's just what they are forced into, as an alternative to extinction.
The land rights must be respected - some are still in the courts. The national status of native peoples must be respected - no less than the national status of Croatians and Estonians, which are not really in dispute. These are people with present identities and desires. If a Haida woman wants to marry a Berber man and live in Brazil, that's their right, and neither their tribal elders nor Canadian law has any jurisdiction over their choice. If a Maya wants to move to Montreal and learn french, so bloody what?
However, any nation whose citizens wish to continue in their ancestral traditions and life-style, on their own land, let them.

But trying to resurrect a dead culture, that's as silly - and cruel - as cloning a mammoth.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
Roel
Posts: 365
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hegel

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Roel »

Alias wrote:
Roel wrote: Good points. You say however that not wanting a melting pot is xenophobia.
I did not say that. What I said was that the immigrant nations of the Americas are already both cultural melting-pots and cultural mosaics. To try any kind of ethnic purging of these countries would require a very powerful and ruthless fascist regime. It would have to be xenophobic, and if that purge targeted specific groups for expulsion, it would be racist.
Trying to keep colonial subjects out of the countries that colonized them is likewise racist.. as well as futile. When France declared (unilaterally, of course) that Algeria was part of France, their motive might have been the free importation of cheap labour. too bad if it backfired
Keeping a monocultural, monoracial country's borders closed to all foreigners is xenophobic, but not necessarily racist.
Closing borders after a political upheaval, civil war or economic collapse might be neither.
Not necessarily in my opinion. You can be very friendly to outsiders and although sticking together as a community without adapting to globalization, still be hospitable to guests. So I don't completely get your point why not wanting a melting pot would equal xenophobia.
I did say, a while back, that old cultural traditions belong to the old country. I did not ask Japan to be a melting-pot, or Ethiopia, or Bali. Only that the transplanted Japanese, Ethiopians or Balinese not impose their old-country superstitions and customs on their American children, nor insist on special exemptions from obeying American laws. At the same time, none of them should be dispossessed, incarcerated or deprived of rights by the American government, simply for being Japanese, Ethiopian or Balinese.
This is pretty basic constitution/charter of rights stuff.
I also believe that it is important to maintain for example the Welsh or Irish culture and language,
Who should do the maintaining, at whose expense?
they are important for researchers to study and a few of the last real Celts alive. I believe that artificially keeping those cultures alive is not bad, as they are very importang to Europe and the world.
Do the Welsh and Irish get a vote? Or are they museum specimens? Lab rats? For whose benefit?
Also the native Mongolian culture for example should be maintained somewhere.
Where? On whose land/ under whose rule?
You say that there is no problem, so do you suggest that native American reservations should be removed, as it's better for them to go in a melting pot? That is a complete disrespect of native American culture.
They were invaded by the malting-pot. Reservations were not their idea nor their choice; it's just what they are forced into, as an alternative to extinction.
The land rights must be respected - some are still in the courts. The national status of native peoples must be respected - no less than the national status of Croatians and Estonians, which are not really in dispute. These are people with present identities and desires. If a Haida woman wants to marry a Berber man and live in Brazil, that's their right, and neither their tribal elders nor Canadian law has any jurisdiction over their choice. If a Maya wants to move to Montreal and learn french, so bloody what?
However, any nation whose citizens wish to continue in their ancestral traditions and life-style, on their own land, let them.

But trying to resurrect a dead culture, that's as silly - and cruel - as cloning a mammoth.
You regard preserving ones' culture as being a lab rat. You show an incredible disdain and disrespect for cultures.

-- Updated December 19th, 2016, 2:57 pm to add the following --
Alias wrote:
Roel wrote: Good points. You say however that not wanting a melting pot is xenophobia.
I did not say that. What I said was that the immigrant nations of the Americas are already both cultural melting-pots and cultural mosaics. To try any kind of ethnic purging of these countries would require a very powerful and ruthless fascist regime. It would have to be xenophobic, and if that purge targeted specific groups for expulsion, it would be racist.
Trying to keep colonial subjects out of the countries that colonized them is likewise racist.. as well as futile. When France declared (unilaterally, of course) that Algeria was part of France, their motive might have been the free importation of cheap labour. too bad if it backfired
Keeping a monocultural, monoracial country's borders closed to all foreigners is xenophobic, but not necessarily racist.
Closing borders after a political upheaval, civil war or economic collapse might be neither.
Not necessarily in my opinion. You can be very friendly to outsiders and although sticking together as a community without adapting to globalization, still be hospitable to guests. So I don't completely get your point why not wanting a melting pot would equal xenophobia.
I did say, a while back, that old cultural traditions belong to the old country. I did not ask Japan to be a melting-pot, or Ethiopia, or Bali. Only that the transplanted Japanese, Ethiopians or Balinese not impose their old-country superstitions and customs on their American children, nor insist on special exemptions from obeying American laws. At the same time, none of them should be dispossessed, incarcerated or deprived of rights by the American government, simply for being Japanese, Ethiopian or Balinese.
This is pretty basic constitution/charter of rights stuff.
I also believe that it is important to maintain for example the Welsh or Irish culture and language,
Who should do the maintaining, at whose expense?
they are important for researchers to study and a few of the last real Celts alive. I believe that artificially keeping those cultures alive is not bad, as they are very importang to Europe and the world.
Do the Welsh and Irish get a vote? Or are they museum specimens? Lab rats? For whose benefit?
Also the native Mongolian culture for example should be maintained somewhere.
Where? On whose land/ under whose rule?
You say that there is no problem, so do you suggest that native American reservations should be removed, as it's better for them to go in a melting pot? That is a complete disrespect of native American culture.
They were invaded by the malting-pot. Reservations were not their idea nor their choice; it's just what they are forced into, as an alternative to extinction.
The land rights must be respected - some are still in the courts. The national status of native peoples must be respected - no less than the national status of Croatians and Estonians, which are not really in dispute. These are people with present identities and desires. If a Haida woman wants to marry a Berber man and live in Brazil, that's their right, and neither their tribal elders nor Canadian law has any jurisdiction over their choice. If a Maya wants to move to Montreal and learn french, so bloody what?
However, any nation whose citizens wish to continue in their ancestral traditions and life-style, on their own land, let them.

But trying to resurrect a dead culture, that's as silly - and cruel - as cloning a mammoth.
In Europe people aren't allowed to preserve their own culture, because all heritage has to make place for foreign cultures. Look at Germany where people can't say gruss Gott because it's insulting to muslims. We might as well stop with all other christian traditions in Europe if it's all insulting. It's similat to me going to an islamic country and saying that their islamic traditions are insulting to me.
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." - Friedrich Hegel
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Alias »

Roel wrote: You regard preserving ones' culture as being a lab rat. You show an incredible disdain and disrespect for cultures.
I don't understand what purpose is served by your distorting what I said, when it's right there in your quote.

Existing nations and cultures should be allowed to develop their own destiny, without outside interference - either in preserving or in disrupting them.
European nations that have invaded other countries already changed those cultures and populations, and opened themselves to being affected by their colonies.
That cannot be undone. Nothing that's past, altered or dead can be put back the way it was.

Any attempt to do so would require brutal, cynical force and entail huge upheavals and hardship for innocent people.
And that is why white - or any other racial/ethnic - 'ism' is necessarily bad.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
Roel
Posts: 365
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hegel

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Roel »

Alias wrote:
Roel wrote: You regard preserving ones' culture as being a lab rat. You show an incredible disdain and disrespect for cultures.
I don't understand what purpose is served by your distorting what I said, when it's right there in your quote.

Existing nations and cultures should be allowed to develop their own destiny, without outside interference - either in preserving or in disrupting them.
European nations that have invaded other countries already changed those cultures and populations, and opened themselves to being affected by their colonies.
That cannot be undone. Nothing that's past, altered or dead can be put back the way it was.

Any attempt to do so would require brutal, cynical force and entail huge upheavals and hardship for innocent people.
And that is why white - or any other racial/ethnic - 'ism' is necessarily bad.
The immigration policies in Europe in which a high number of migrants with islamic backgrounds come in which create outside interference doesn't allow Europe to do this.

As I see people should be blamed for what ancestors did. This same reasoning is used to justify anti-jewish violence because some ancestors of jews 2000 years ago were part of the chain which got Jesus Christ crucified.
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." - Friedrich Hegel
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Burning ghost »

Roel -

"Europe" makes that choice though. That is part of European culture, to allow people to enter. I understand some of the protest and maybe large swathes of the population don't like to see such changes in diversity.

Culture will grow and develop. Some pieces will be lost and others will remain partly intact. It seems to me we generally are moving into uncertain times and some want to retain old ideas and others want to develop news ways for society to work in an ever changing world. What will be will be. We can only question our fear of change and measure that against the risks of not changing.

Humanity has a long way to go and there is no rulebook to follow except our own communal conscience.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Roel
Posts: 365
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hegel

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Roel »

Burning ghost wrote:Roel -

"Europe" makes that choice though. That is part of European culture, to allow people to enter. I understand some of the protest and maybe large swathes of the population don't like to see such changes in diversity.

Culture will grow and develop. Some pieces will be lost and others will remain partly intact. It seems to me we generally are moving into uncertain times and some want to retain old ideas and others want to develop news ways for society to work in an ever changing world. What will be will be. We can only question our fear of change and measure that against the risks of not changing.

Humanity has a long way to go and there is no rulebook to follow except our own communal conscience.
But what is Europe? Only the people which take part in the European institutions, or the whole population? I think this choice is made by people in power, not by the general population, Europe is no democracy, when a majority of people voted against a European constitution, it silently got through. That tells you enough. If a majority of Europe voted in favour of immigration and diversity, it would be ok, but the majority doesn't seem to agree with it.

The birth rate argument also doesn't make sense, we have enough technologies which enable a reasonable birth rate of native Europeans without a higher birth rate by migration. This is a social experiment, while research has shown that homogenous societies are generally the most peaceful ones, and I wonder if you can call me one big country where diversity and a multicultural society was a success.

You also can't be against it in normal discussions, because anyone who is against diversity gets called a racist, which implies forced diversity by discrediting anyone who disagrees with it, their opinion and rights are basically not valued. Like someone else said here, both the rights of immigrants/black people and people with a light skin color should be respected, but if you try to get out of the conversation people against forced diversity, you are not respecting their rights or opinions. There should be at least places similar to native American reservations or Israel be created in Europe if we take this seriously where immigration isn't allowed, not because of hate or bigotry, but because that's one of the only solutions to preserving a native European identity while not infringing the rights of immigrants.
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." - Friedrich Hegel
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is white nationalism necessarily bad?

Post by Burning ghost »

I was not talking about the politics of opinion. I simply said European culture is what it is. We do not decide on culture attitudes, they develop nascently and organically.

I would imagine people don't want to kill other people in general. If we all voted on a human law that said "Don't kill people" I think the percentage would overwhelming be in favour of this law. That doesn't stop killing though.

By this I mean we do not understand very well the dynamics of human societies. When it comes to understanding what it means to be a "doctor", a "European" or a "woman", we have some kind of idea what this means, but it is not specific (even for a female European doctor!). Certain cultures only have relative meaning when they are placed alongside other cultures.

We could the ask what is "human" culture? Here we have more of a problem in some ways because we are human and can only compare by humanistic means not by the means of a "canine culture", which just so happens to be very much entwined with huamn culture in the parallel domestication of both humans and dogs together within the same commune.

If we think in more micro terms then we have different cultures in cities too. From city to city, and town to town, there are differences ... going further in we can talk about street to street, or house to house.
AKA badgerjelly
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021