What do you think of Racial-Nationalism?

[Lusitan]

Racial-Nationalism is an ideology based on this ideas:

-Every racial group is a patrimony and should be preserved, protecting its cultural and biological integrity.

-Everyone should be proud of their race and consider it his nation.

-Every race has the right to self-determination and a living space of its one, multi-racialism creates hate discrimination and conflict, besides destroing diversity (at least in the biological basis) in the long-term.

-Racial differences should be accepted, but no race is superior to another, every race has it's weak a strong points.

If this ideology is free from racism, radicalism and extremism what do you think of it?

[zemelmete]

I agree with these:

Lusitan said:

Racial-Nationalism is an ideology based on this ideas:

-Everyone should be proud of their race and consider it his nation.

-Racial differences should be accepted, but no race is superior to another, every race has it's weak a strong points.

I disagree with these:

Lusitan said:

Racial-Nationalism is an ideology based on this ideas:

-Every racial group is a patrimony and should be preserved, protecting its cultural and biological integrity.

-Every race has the right to self-determination and a living space of its one, multi-racialism creates hate discrimination and conflict, besides destroing diversity (at least in the biological basis) in the long-term.

[Faelcind]

I agree with Zemelmente.

[Evan1211]

My thoughts exactly faelcind. I read the first two OK, then the next two sounded negative to me.

[Lusitan]

You opose the ideas of self-determination and preservation, why do you find those negative?

I think it would be reasonable to create a state for each race for people that do not wish to live in a multiracial society.

I would favor for exemple the creation of a state within the borders of Australia for aboriginal people, australoids are in danger of extinction, i would not like to see the disaperance of this unique expression of mankind that took tens of thousands of years to evolve.

[nockwasright]

Lusitan said:

You opose the ideas of self-determination and preservation, why do you find those negative?

I think it would be reasonable to create a state for each race for people that do not wish to live in a multiracial society.

I would favor for exemple the creation of a state within the borders of Australia for aboriginal people, australoids are in danger of extinction, i would not like to see the disaperance of this unique expression of mankind that took tens of thousands of years to evolve.

I oppose all of the points you made. Race is an abstraction, only the individuals do actually exist. Implementing any of the Racial - Nationalism points would mean to limit the individual freedom of real persons just for the sake of an imaginary entity, IMO. If an Aboriginal feels like mating with an Englishwoman, I don't think it right to ask him to choose an Aboriginal instead, in order to preserve the race.

Furthermore, I see everybody agrees that everyone should be proud of his race. I fail to see why, and aslo how, someone could be proud of something so remotely related with himself. Also this implies a value judgement, and so implies that your racial group is better than others (otherwise, why being proud?).

[vojta]

I've seriously got to go with nockwasright on this one. We should start looking at one other as "individuals" and behave accordingly. Until then, how are we in any way more "evolved" than "many-a-millenia ago"?

[Meddish]

SANCHuNIATHON said:

I've seriously got to go with nockwasright on this one. We should start looking at one other as "individuals" and behave accordingly. Until then, how are we in any way more "evolved" than "many-a-millenia ago"?

Than why the "I hate Pakis as a sig" lol? ;D

[MC anunnaki]

Lusitan said:

-Every racial group is a patrimony and should be preserved, protecting its cultural and biological integrity.

Anyone can go on and preserve their race as much as they like, as long as they don't force their beliefs on the rest of us. If some Swedish dude only wants to shag Swedish chicks because dem blondes be racially superior, fine by me. When the same dude tries to tell me I should not be with a Swedish man, he can go jump off a tall building.

Lusitan said:

-Everyone should be proud of their race and consider it his nation.

Why not, if it makes your day. I'm very proud to have been born with ten fingers and toes. I feel so special.

Lusitan said:

-Every race has the right to self-determination and a living space of its one, multi-racialism creates hate discrimination and conflict, besides destroing diversity (at least in the biological basis) in the long-term.

Races are not confined to single nations. Every nation has the right to decide if they want to allow immigration of groups of people belonging to a different race/s than the natives of that nation.

Lusitan said:

-Racial differences should be accepted, but no race is superior to another, every race has it's weak a strong points.

I have no problem with people feeling superior because they're of race A, B or AB as long as I don't have to hear their yapping about it (which is the number one thing these "superior" folks like to do). If some guy walks up to me and says "I'm superior because I'm white/black/yellow and you're not" then I'll just shrug it off, but before that I'll probably grab his nuts and squeeze really hard. (Swarthoids rule!)

[Lusitan]

Of course this ideology is not about imposing principles to others or restrict any kind of liberty. If someone wants to marry someone of different race no one has the right to stop him, but there are other ways of preserving the different races.

People that have this ideology and want to live among their one people in a monoracial society, do these people have the right to self determination?

A great number of African-americans for exemple want a nation of their one and separate from the rest to preserve their race and avoid conflict. If this is done in an humane way respecting the rights of people would it be acceptable?

PS. I agree that we should look at people more like individuals than groups, since individual differences are bigger than inter-group differences, that doesn't mean we should forget or igonre the the importance of racial groups.

[Ilmatar]

I don't agree with any of it. I could agree with the point 2) if the word "race" was replaced with some more suitable word, such as "cultural backround". I couldn't, however, agree with point 1) since the whole idea of "cultural integrity" is based on the concept of the culture as something unchangeable, when it's not.

[nockwasright]

Lusitan said:

People that have this ideology and want to live among their one people in a monoracial society, do these people have the right to self determination?

But how could this be achieved? States are organised in such a way that we can't opt out or in easily. So a decision taken in this sense at government level will necessarily limit the freedom of many, at least the yet unborn.

Within a multiracial state people can always choose to live only with their kind (marry each other, having businesses with each other) but this has some limits, as for instance they can't have a police and a judiciary of their own, as this would mean having another state.

There are already very self segregated racial groups within multicultural societies. One used to be the Chinese.
In the States the Chinese immigrants used to be remarkably self segregated, to the point of ignoring the possible benefits the welfare State offered them, and having their own unofficial tribunal and policy in their neighborougs. Also some hyper religious Jew community comes to mind.

The more open and liberal is the state, the more some of its citizens have the power of interacting only with their kind.

[Ponto Hardbottle]

Yes that is right. In free and open societies with accountable governments people can associate more freely with whom they choose. Western style governments provide havens for every kind of freethinkers and obscure religious groups like the Exclusive Brethren, the Amish and Mennonites. Monoracial countries and continents are on the skids. It is too late to reverse the trend towards multiracial societies. Even bastions of restricted entry like Saudi Arabia cannot keep muslims of various races out even if they are European caucasoids or Chinese mongoloids.

[Lusitan]

nockwasright said:

But how could this be achieved? States are organised in such a way that we can't opt out or in easily. So a decision taken in this sense at government level will necessarily limit the freedom of many, at least the yet unborn.

Within a multiracial state people can always choose to live only with their kind (marry each other, having businesses with each other) but this has some limits, as for instance they can't have a police and a judiciary of their own, as this would mean having another state.

There are already very self segregated racial groups within multicultural societies. One used to be the Chinese.
In the States the Chinese immigrants used to be remarkably self segregated, to the point of ignoring the possible benefits the welfare State offered them, and having their own unofficial tribunal and policy in their neighborougs. Also some hyper religious Jew community comes to mind.

The more open and liberal is the state, the more some of its citizens have the power of interacting only with their kind.

I think it is possible to do this in an acceptable way in multi-racial zones, although i recognize that it would be difficult, but there are still lots of homogeneous places in the world that wish a monoracial society.

Israel is trying to do this, only ethnic hebrews (of any religion) can emigrate to Israel and non-hebrews are presented with benefits and incentives to leave the country, but i dont suport the racism and tirany inflicted to the palestinian people, i think it could be done without this kind of problems.

[Dodona Underground]

I don't think that racial nationalism is important, per se. If there is to be a nationalism based on heritage, then it should be ethnicity. What does that mean? Well, sorry for the broken record refrain, but that entails an immigration policy in which those who are ethnically distant are less favored when deciding who to let in and who to keep out.

This assures the kind of maximum assimilation which is in the best interest of the destination nation.

But here's the connection with race. It happens that those who are most ethnically similar are also the most racially similar. Thus, in effect ethnic preservation = racial preservation.