3 ms·

America Without God: How Politics Replaced Religion

skissane 6y ago
> In democracies without a pronounced ideological bent, which is most of them, nationhood must instead rely on a shared sense of being a distinct people, forged over centuries. It can be hard for outsiders and immigrants to embrace a national identity steeped in ethnicity and history when it was never theirs. The author wants to set up a dichotomy between democracies with a "pronounced ideological bent" (such as the US), and democracies based on a national/ethnic identity with centuries of history behind it (such as Germany). But I don't see my own country, Australia, represented in that dichotomy. I don't think Australia has a "pronounced ideological bent", to anywhere near the same extent as the US does. But mainstream Australian culture doesn't have centuries of history behind it like Germany does either. Mainstream Australian culture is based on a British/Irish base with layers of increasingly more diverse immigration on top. It doesn't have many centuries of history behind it, because it is only 233 years old. I think it is an example of how it is possible to have less of an American-style ideological bent but still have an identity more open to immigration than say Germany's is. When a big chunk of the population are immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, it is possible to view newer immigrants as just more people doing the same thing that you or your recent ancestors did. (Australia does have tens of thousands of years of indigenous inhabitants prior to British settlement, but mainstream Australian culture doesn't take much at all from indigenous cultures–far less than New Zealand culture takes from Maori culture. One reason is that Maori have a common cultural identity and language, Australia has over 200 indigenous cultures speaking many mutually unintelligible languages. Also, Maori are around 16% of New Zealand's population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are only around 3% of Australia's. It is much easier to borrow culturally from a single culture which is a substantial minority than from a numerically smaller minority divided into numerous different cultures.)

> In democracies without a pronounced ideological bent, which is most of them, nationhood must instead rely on a shared sense of being a distinct people, forged over centuries. It can be hard for outsiders and immigrants to embrace a national identity steeped in ethnicity and history when it was never theirs. The author wants to set up a dichotomy between democracies with a "pronounced ideological bent" (such as the US), and democracies based on a national/ethnic identity with centuries of history behind it (such as Germany). But I don't see my own country, Australia, represented in that dichotomy. I don't think Australia has a "pronounced ideological bent", to anywhere near the same extent as the US does. But mainstream Australian culture doesn't have centuries of history behind it like Germany does either. Mainstream Australian culture is based on a British/Irish base with layers of increasingly more diverse immigration on top. It doesn't have many centuries of history behind it, because it is only 233 years old. I think it is an example of how it is possible to have less of an American-style ideological bent but still have an identity more open to immigration than say Germany's is. When a big chunk of the population are immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, it is possible to view newer immigrants as just more people doing the same thing that you or your recent ancestors did. (Australia does have tens of thousands of years of indigenous inhabitants prior to British settlement, but mainstream Australian culture doesn't take much at all from indigenous cultures–far less than New Zealand culture takes from Maori culture. One reason is that Maori have a common cultural identity and language, Australia has over 200 indigenous cultures speaking many mutually unintelligible languages. Also, Maori are around 16% of New Zealand's population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are only around 3% of Australia's. It is much easier to borrow culturally from a single culture which is a substantial minority than from a numerically smaller minority divided into numerous different cultures.)