Race, tribe and nationalism

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Heritage is the most unmovable part of someone's identity. Inherited intelligence, inherited traits, inherited character, inherited abilities.. and disabilities. The movable part is one's achievements through life, acquired characteristics

Heritage is much part of one's identity. Inherited character, inherited intelligence, inherited traits, inherited culture, inherited abilities and disabilities. You name it. The other part is acquired.

What makes a man's identity is a combination of inherited and acquired characteristics, of which the inherited make up his ethnic (national) identity.

As you see, nothing vague about it.

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

Culture is not inherited, it is acquired anyway.

Citizenship is a jacobine, artificial concept which seeks to destroy national identity through substitution.

Any stranger to a nation can become a citizen of the country which represents that nation. When someone, purposedly or not, confuses country with nation and citizen with nationality, chaos follows suit.
They do not have a national identity, they have a confused identity. There is an important difference there. As I said above, if you confuse nation with country/state, chaos follows suit.

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?

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

I agree that disloyal individuals should not be eligible for citizenship.

Not pretty much but totally impossible. I could integrate in a country which offered certain ethnic affinities to mine. But I could never become one of the nation. I would be a citizen, but my nation would still live inside me. Even if did not exist anymore. As you can see, national identity is more spiritual than material.

Of course.

I don't see how this is a problem. Britain has always been hostile to Europe in any of its forms. In recent times Britain has been an outpost of America in Europe. The center of American spionage, both political and commercial, is in Britain. Every proposal by Britain in the EU must be distrusted, as it is often to serve American (actually, Anglo-American) interests. Atlantism is one such interest, contrary to European interests.

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

Nonesense. Their economic input is years light insufficient to cover up such costs.

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

Unrealistic as that is. The Patriotic Conservatives (which you continously mistake as anything Nationalist) will too try to attract the votes of the immigrant population. Not that I can see the future on a crystal ball.. in fact they already do it.

Patriotic Conservatism is not anymore an alternative to Nationalism.

What you will see is an 'x' generation of immigrants and natives (both leftists and 'patriotics') on the one side, and a minority of anti-immigration nationalists on the opposite side. Not too dissimilar to the present, is it?

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

Either you didn't understand my statement, or you don't know how market economies function.

I am very familiar with market economics.

[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.

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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

He's an Inuit...
See here;
Die Polargebiete der Erde

Sommerlager der Eskimo
Traditionell waren die Inuit (wie sie sich selber nennen, es bedeutet in ihrer Sprache einfach "Menschen") vorwiegend nomadische Jäger. Die Abbildung zeigt einen Inuit neben seinem Sommerzelt aus Walross- und Robbenfellen.

Lange bevor die Europäer die Arktis entdeckten, gab es dort in weiten Teilen des Landes eine verstreut lebende Bevölkerung. Nur Island stellte eine nennenswerte Ausnahme dar. Die Ureinwohner gehörten zahlreichen verschiedenen Gruppen an und bedienten sich verschiedener Sprachen; sie stammten jedoch alle ursprünglich aus Asien. Die Inuit (Eskimos) erreichten den Atlantischen Ozean im Osten Grönlands und die Saami (Lappen) gelangten nach Norwegen.

Traditionelle Kleidung der Eskimo
Traditional costume of the Eskimo!

Die Inuit in Grönland, Nordamerika und im Nordosten von Sibirien leben vom Walross- und Robbenfang, um sich mit Kleidung und Nahrung zu versorgen. Haut und Fell werden zu Stiefeln, Hosen und Jacken verarbeitet. Diese Inuitfrau stammt aus Alaska.
In den Arktisregionen Russlands gibt es ungefähr 20 verschiedene Bevölkerungsruppen. Dazu gehören die Komi oder Zyrian, die ungefähr 250 000 Mitglieder zählen und die Arktisgebiete des europäischen Teils von Russland bewohnen; die Jakuten mit circa 300 000 Angehörigen, die vorwiegend im Becken des Flusses Lena leben, sind die größte Gruppe. Die Inuit leben hauptsächlich im Norden Alaskas, im Norden Kanadas und in den Küstenregionen Grönlands.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Llywarch Hen

He's an Inuit...

I'm not familiar with the Boreal races. I searched google images for "saami" and he came up.

Anyway, take these instead:

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I'm not familiar with the Boreal races. I searched google images for "saami" and he came up.

Anyway, take these instead:

Ever considered installing a 'Thanks Button'?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Llywarch Hen

Ever considered installing a 'Thanks Button'?

No. I discussed it with someone else on staff and we agreed that the thanks we saw on some other forum looked often funny.

But I can give you rep. points for it.

[Caesar Princeps]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Race alone means peanuts.

You are absolutely right, especially in Mediterranean Nations where there maybe more mixted racial phenotypes. Subrace can be ignored, if there is full ethnic heritage about language, faith, traditions, culture, sense of belonging. Anyway, assimilation is to be strictly limited.

Moreover, I would like to question the term "citizen", which is much more related to concepts such as State and Nationality, than Nation and Ethnic Group.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

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.

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.

You are completely missing the point. I never said that being a Finnish citizen means that a person really is a Finn as that is not the case today.

I am of the opinion that Finnish citizenship should only be given to people who are truly Finns which means that the present laws should be changed to reflect that reality.

If tomorrow the Spanish government decided to take my ID card and to remove my citizenship, would I stop being Spanish?

No. You are missing the point.

And if then I asked for asylum to the Finnish government and they granted me citizenship on a paper, would I become a Finn?

No. You are missing the point.

Read the poll question again. The question is about what kind of people should the Law allow become citizens of your country.

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

It is central to the functioning of the society. Citizenship denotes acceptance to the national community. If people who are not members of the national community are able to obtain citizenship, as they presently are in most European countries, the laws are faulty and must be changed. I presented several alternatives in the poll of this thread.

Don't you think that Spanish Law should include a concept of citizenship?

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

Spaniards and people of Spanish descent share the same blood and a part of their heritage. Norwegians and Lapps don't and they are completely different peoples.

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.

It should have been plain from the context that I referred to skilled immigrants in general.

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.

Elaborate.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Caesar Princeps

You are absolutely right, especially in Mediterranean Nations where there maybe more mixted racial phenotypes. Subrace can be ignored

Actually, I said "alone", which does not mean that it should be ignored.

A Mediterranean phenotype is not a mixed phenotype. And it is not as if there was not any admixture in other parts of Europe.

if there is full ethnic heritage about language, faith, traditions, culture, sense of belonging. Anyway, assimilation is to be strictly limited.

That's not a full ethnic heritage.

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Caesar Princeps

Subrace can be ignored, if there is full ethnic heritage about language, faith, traditions, culture, sense of belonging. Anyway, assimilation is to be strictly limited.

I agree that race alone means nothing, but race is a necessary element of nationalism, you can't ignore it, as ethnic nationalism can't exist without it.

You are absolutely right, especially in Mediterranean Nations where there maybe more mixted racial phenotypes.

Could you please ellaborate about this?

[Caesar Princeps]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Actually, I said "alone", which does not mean that it should be ignored.

A Mediterranean phenotype is not a mixed phenotype. And it is not as if there was not any admixture in other parts of Europe.

That's not a full ethnic heritage.

I did not speak about Mediterranean phenotype, but mixed phenotypes (Mediterranid, Atlantid, Armenoid, Dinarid, few Nordid, few Norid, etc.) in Mediterranean nations, which are more various respect to NorthWest Europe, which had less historic migrations and foreign contacts than Mediterranean Sea area.

If we should considerate ALL elements of ethnic heritage, we should exclude from a Nation, partly assimilated members (I mean, for example those Welsh who are more British than Welsh, or Bretons reduced to French or Italianized Sards) who no more speak their Language, or even all atheists and agnosticist who lack of National Religion.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Galaico

I agree that race alone means nothing, but race is a necessary element of nationalism, you can't ignore it, as ethnic nationalism can't exist without it.

Not without recognition of differences between Europid, Mongoloid and Negroid races but sub-racial considerations can be dropped if deemed necessary. The biological validity of Europid subraces is doubted by many experts anyway.

[Caesar Princeps]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Not without recognition of differences between Europid, Mongoloid and Negroid races but sub-racial considerations can be dropped if deemed necessary. The biological validity of Europid subraces is doubted by many serious scientists anyway.

I did not speak about these differences (Europid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, etc.) since they were so evident...

On the other side it is often very difficult to judge from the phenotype between different European Nations...

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Not without recognition of differences between Europid, Mongoloid and Negroid races but sub-racial considerations can be dropped if deemed necessary. The biological validity of Europid subraces is doubted by many experts anyway.

Moderate subracial limitation is valid aswell, as most nations are predominan