[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

It's a word that can have many definitions and in that sense vague.

It is a concept that defines a set of elements of identity. If you still think that that's vague, then identity is vague, nation is vague and everything else is vague.

The fact is that heritage is the more absolute part of identity.

Main Entry: her·i·tage
Pronunciation: 'her-&-tij, 'he-r&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from heriter to inherit, from Late Latin hereditare, from Latin hered-, heres heir -- more at heir
1 : property that descends to an heir
2 a : something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor : legacy, inheritance b : tradition
3 : something possessed as a result of one's natural situation or birth : birthright <the nation's heritage of tolerance>

Culture is not inherited, it is acquired anyway.

Certainly there is a culture which has both a component of heritage and a component of acquisition. It is that knowledge that passes from one generation to the next. Admittedly, more acquired than truly inherited. I was thinking of that.

You misunderstood me.

Institution of citizenship is a necessary part of the structure of any nation. How members of the nation be distinguished from foreigners otherwise?

The members of a nation are distinguished from foreigners through their ethnic adscription. If you have problems to distinguish between an ethnic Finn and a Pakistani with a paper which grants him Finnish citizenship, then you have a serious problem.

If tomorrow the Spanish government decided to take my ID card and to remove my citizenship, would I stop being Spanish? And if then I asked for asylum to the Finnish government and they granted me citizenship on a paper, would I become a Finn?

It is the purpose of nationalists to construct meaningful criteria for the obtainment of citizenship. That is what this thread is all about.

Citizenship is of not central to Nationalism. It may be to Conservative Patriotism or even to Liberal and Socialist Multiculturalism.

I still don't understand what kind of difference do you make between European and non-European countries as you are a nationalist opposed to Pan-Europeanism.

Europe is a geopolitical area made up of a number of different ethnicities with a number of common bounds. I already explained on another thread how these limits are defined within a historical framework.

Hispanic former colonies are culturally more related to Spain than countries of Northern Europe.

Say again?


With such a vague statement, you also imply by definition that a Norwegian is culturally more related to the Saami than to the Spanish.

It is precisely to economic input of working immigrants which is used to offset the costs of immigrants on welfare.

You were refering to the economic input of some supposedly existing American immigrants, engineers if I recall correctly. I should have forseen that you were going to extend the status to all immigrants with a job. But I didn't.

That is the scenario of defeat. What is the most probable scenario of victory?

Yes. That's the likely scenario of defeat if one puts his hopes in the conflict moving towards the mere left-right divide future that you depicted.

A scenario for victory would require much sacrifice and a will to compromise in a radical change in the economic structures. There will no be any victory without substantial losses.