4 ms·

How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have t

How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot.

psacawa 4y ago
What can I say, man? History is absolutely chock full of examples that show that other identity groups can represent existential threats, including very recent ones: Chinese genocide of Uyhgurs, Burmese genocide of Rohinya, Russian agression in Ukraine. Let me pick at specifically Russia/Ukraine. A short time ago, these countries economic ties were vast. There were many Ukrainians whose personal wealth stemmed from e.g. the country's ties to Russian petrochemical industry. Others, seeing that, said "You are accruing personal wealth by strengthening a foreign power's hold on our nation." To which the response was occasionally "Are you racist? Are you nationalist?" We see now how this turned out. The dirty secret is that history vindicates all forms of identity group tribalism, in principal. That includes racism. There is no shortage in history of examples like the above, nor of examples of destroyed nations. If anything, I feel the problem is that contemporary countries do not represent the nations the purport to.
- tracker1 4y ago
  I would say you only have (limited) influence over the nation you are born into... so, you should somewhat naturally favor that nation's well-being over others. You can only influence the acts/actions of other nations as strings attached to trade/treaty. And can only assume those that you trade with will be making the same emphasis, which is their own nation's well-being.
bumby 4y ago
Why is family any different, but identity viewed through a evolutionary/genetic rather than geographic lens? Both are pure chance that you have no control over.
rayiner 4y ago
“Racism” is where southern white people don’t like southern black people despite being from the same place and sharing highly overlapping culture, religion, and values. When you’re talking about different groups of people from different cultures that’s not “racism.” My parents, who grew up in Bangladesh, an extremely hierarchical and traditional society, couldn’t be more different from my wife’s parents, who are descendent from frontier pioneers. Like they can get along as individuals but neither would want to live in a society built by the other. And that’s exactly what happens when you introduce large scale immigration into a democracy.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  If that's true then why does anyone immigrate anywhere
- tptacek 4y ago
  No, racially-motivated prejudice in either direction between your parents and your wife's parents is, in fact, also racism, despite the fact that neither group was born in the south or has "overlapping culture". Xenophobia is a form of racism; globally, it's probably the most common form.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Incorrect. It’s totally fine to not get along with other people—and certainly to not want to share a democratic polity with them—based on cultural differences. There’s no reason why people who escaped west to get away from elites should we to to share a polity with foreign elites who think the “common people” need to be carefully managed. Conversely, there’s no reason why folks who believe in rigid social hierarchy and norm enforcement should want to live around people who are pathologically individualistic. That’s entirely unrelated to “racism” or “xenophobia,” which is stereotyping or prejudice based on superficial rather than substantive differences.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      No, it's not fine. There isn't a good kind of racism and a bad kind of racism. Much of your argument here is probably best directed to Publius, who disagrees with you directly about, well, all of this. There's a benign version of the argument you're making here, the one that protects cultural and religious tolerance while establishing some set of core values (pluralism, the rule of law, representative government, separation of church and state) set above all other concerns. But you're making, and re-making, a case for excluding people because their differences of religion (your example) and culture make native-born people unhappy. That's not OK, and I'm pretty sure I've got the founders on my side of this argument.
khmmr 4y ago
> If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot. You absolutely have the right to improve your lot, if by lot you mean the portion of land you were born in. I would even go as far as to say you have the duty to care for it. However, you don't have the right to take other peoples lot, their identity and society from them just because you were born unlucky and they were in your opinion born unfairly lucky. What you are advocating in practice is the destruction of all smaller ethnic groups, local traditions and cultural diversity of the world by overriding everything with unstable and internally conflicting pseudo-culture (or maybe a bit more politely worded pop-culture) and identity policies promoted by the wokeist Americans. This modern, woke American imperialism hiding behind the cover of liberty and personal freedoms is in practice almost as evil and destructive as the reactionary imperialism of Russia.

How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot.

psacawa 4y ago

What can I say, man? History is absolutely chock full of examples that show that other identity groups can represent existential threats, including very recent ones: Chinese genocide of Uyhgurs, Burmese genocide of Rohinya, Russian agression in Ukraine. Let me pick at specifically Russia/Ukraine. A short time ago, these countries economic ties were vast. There were many Ukrainians whose personal wealth stemmed from e.g. the country's ties to Russian petrochemical industry. Others, seeing that, said "You are accruing personal wealth by strengthening a foreign power's hold on our nation." To which the response was occasionally "Are you racist? Are you nationalist?" We see now how this turned out. The dirty secret is that history vindicates all forms of identity group tribalism, in principal. That includes racism. There is no shortage in history of examples like the above, nor of examples of destroyed nations. If anything, I feel the problem is that contemporary countries do not represent the nations the purport to.

tracker1 4y ago
I would say you only have (limited) influence over the nation you are born into... so, you should somewhat naturally favor that nation's well-being over others. You can only influence the acts/actions of other nations as strings attached to trade/treaty. And can only assume those that you trade with will be making the same emphasis, which is their own nation's well-being.

bumby 4y ago

Why is family any different, but identity viewed through a evolutionary/genetic rather than geographic lens? Both are pure chance that you have no control over.

rayiner 4y ago

“Racism” is where southern white people don’t like southern black people despite being from the same place and sharing highly overlapping culture, religion, and values. When you’re talking about different groups of people from different cultures that’s not “racism.” My parents, who grew up in Bangladesh, an extremely hierarchical and traditional society, couldn’t be more different from my wife’s parents, who are descendent from frontier pioneers. Like they can get along as individuals but neither would want to live in a society built by the other. And that’s exactly what happens when you introduce large scale immigration into a democracy.

kevviiinn 4y ago
If that's true then why does anyone immigrate anywhere
tptacek 4y ago
No, racially-motivated prejudice in either direction between your parents and your wife's parents is, in fact, also racism, despite the fact that neither group was born in the south or has "overlapping culture". Xenophobia is a form of racism; globally, it's probably the most common form.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Incorrect. It’s totally fine to not get along with other people—and certainly to not want to share a democratic polity with them—based on cultural differences. There’s no reason why people who escaped west to get away from elites should we to to share a polity with foreign elites who think the “common people” need to be carefully managed. Conversely, there’s no reason why folks who believe in rigid social hierarchy and norm enforcement should want to live around people who are pathologically individualistic. That’s entirely unrelated to “racism” or “xenophobia,” which is stereotyping or prejudice based on superficial rather than substantive differences.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No, it's not fine. There isn't a good kind of racism and a bad kind of racism. Much of your argument here is probably best directed to Publius, who disagrees with you directly about, well, all of this. There's a benign version of the argument you're making here, the one that protects cultural and religious tolerance while establishing some set of core values (pluralism, the rule of law, representative government, separation of church and state) set above all other concerns. But you're making, and re-making, a case for excluding people because their differences of religion (your example) and culture make native-born people unhappy. That's not OK, and I'm pretty sure I've got the founders on my side of this argument.

khmmr 4y ago

> If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot. You absolutely have the right to improve your lot, if by lot you mean the portion of land you were born in. I would even go as far as to say you have the duty to care for it. However, you don't have the right to take other peoples lot, their identity and society from them just because you were born unlucky and they were in your opinion born unfairly lucky. What you are advocating in practice is the destruction of all smaller ethnic groups, local traditions and cultural diversity of the world by overriding everything with unstable and internally conflicting pseudo-culture (or maybe a bit more politely worded pop-culture) and identity policies promoted by the wokeist Americans. This modern, woke American imperialism hiding behind the cover of liberty and personal freedoms is in practice almost as evil and destructive as the reactionary imperialism of Russia.