Comments on: Ents and Trolls

By: nic

nic — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:30:42 +0000

By this logic, someone living in london with a british passport, speaking only spanish, eating only spanish food, following only spanish traditions is what?British? British passport means British citizenship. So yeah, this theoretical person would be British, as well as unemployed and homeless and penniless. How the hell could anyone survive in London without speaking a word of English and yet have enough money to buy only Spanish food and eat at Spanish restaurants and manage to get citizenship in the first place? It’s impossible. Even if it was only for the paperwork. No one is arguing against the requirement to speak the language for acquiring citizenship anyway. What does that have to do with ethnic nationalism, I have no idea. Your comments are so incoherent I don’t even know what or who you are arguing with by now.

By: ladder

ladder — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:24:01 +0000

nic: What are you? Since doesn't define you. What are your people, how are you what ever you are? By this logic, someone living in london with a british passport, speaking only spanish, eating only spanish food, following only spanish traditions is what?British? As to the benignness of nationalism, that's irrelevant. What are the UCKif not a national liberation movement for the Kosavars of Albanian extraction. Are they basing their identity on some sort of individualism or on their group (national) identity? How do i know someone is Albanian,Turkish, or Greek? If not from the ethnic identity?

By: ladder

ladder — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:01:19 +0000

In case anyone still paying attention. Apparently to be an american you must be able to read, write, and speak basic English.

By: nic

nic — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:00:03 +0000

ladder, you’ve completely lost me by now. No one was talking of one world governments (please…). What I meant by group identity not being ethnic nationalism is obvious. Everyone is born into a language, culture, probably religion, ethnicity, group, nation, etc. (not to mention in every nation people have different religions and more regional identities and so on, so those things intersect). When you move to a different country, there’s nothing wrong in keeping that identity even, if you like and are so inclined, by having strong ties with a community of people who like you come from the same place and origins etc. Even American expatriates do that. It does not exclude being a part of the new nation at all. We’re all individuals and we all also have some group identity, some we’re born into, some we choose. Some people are more into group identity, some less. Some immigrants like to stick together more, some like it less. But usually, whenever there is significant immigration, that sticking together does happen. To go from this sort of ordinary phenomenon of immigration – the creation of local communities – to ethnic nationalism takes a big step in a political direction that is never benign. Of course if you’re British you have a different background from a Norwegian, though, it’s not like it’s two opposite parts of the globe, it’s still Europe. But yes, obviously nationality and language make for significant differences even within a common area. That simple fact does not make you an ethnic nationalist! Irish or Italian or Hispanic or Asian or Arab or Muslim communities in the US or UK or Europe, they are not ethnic nationalism. The history of the Balkans has been so screwed up because of ethnic nationalisms, not by the mere fact there were different ethnic and/or religious groups, but by the fanaticism and political, ideological exploitation of that fanaticism. There is no benign form of ethnic nationalism – unless by benign nationalism we mean things like traditions and group identity, but that’s a misuse of the word “nationalism”. It’s a word that already implies a fanatical belief, whereas tradition and culture are the basic stuff we all grow up with and they are not inherently matters of conflict at all – until people decide to make them so. European history is packed with examples of precisely that.

By: ladder

ladder — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:31:58 +0000

nic: Why doesn’t czechoslovakia exist anymore? No one wanted to be a citizen or something? Pols are Pols in Poland because of there ethnicity not civics.

By: ladder

ladder — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:19:39 +0000

Oh, by the way, This whole discussion started with VDH claim about the islamic-horde out to get us all…be afraid. :)

By: ladder

ladder — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:15:23 +0000

nic: “ladder: defining yourself by your tradition, as a group or individual, is not “ethnic nationalism”.” Definition please. That’s the real world. I didn’t say I was for it but there it is. Why don’t we all have a one-world goverment, afterall we’re all the same right? As to the BNP (i assume British National Party), that’s actually a good example. What is British? They try to make seem that they care but ultimately there just a bunch of racists/racialists. To be British,you’d have to have something which was unique to british culture. Otherwise how are you different from a norwegian. There policies seem to be just a form of darky-go-home and get out of our land. A nation is based on an affirmative position. We are this, we act like this; Not we are not this, we don’t act like that. That’s just being against someone, that’s not nationbuilding. Why are Everton fans so happy now? Because there second in the table or because liverpool is many places below them. If it’s the former, they might be everton supporters, if it’s the latter, they’re just liverpool-haters.

By: nic

nic — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:19:14 +0000

ladder: defining yourself by your tradition, as a group or individual, is not “ethnic nationalism”. Thus breaking up the artificial state of Yugoslavia was the correct thing to do, same goes the the Czechs and Slovaks. … Oh, and remember Milosovic was relatively tame in comparison to some of the others who could have had his job. Ditto as above. That “WE” define ourselves by our traditions and blood Blood, land, ethnic nationalism… well, well, you’ve definitely got some talent you could put to use there. You might be interested in a job position that’s just become available after they arrested the BNP leader. Good luck.

By: ladder

ladder — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:48:34 +0000

rob: If you go to belfast and meet a friend, are you the londoner and the belfastian of the same people. You are both British, right? I don’t know, that’s for the both of you to decide, but traditionally the answer is no. Your english, s/he’s irish. I’m not arguing something is right or wrong. Rather, that this is the default standard that you have to work with. That “WE” define ourselves by our traditions and blood. Just because you live nearby doesn’t mean we’re of the same people. If you want to change that, then look up consent of the governed and all that. However, the idea that the US is this paradise of civic virtue is nonsense. People have always defined americanness by the language and traditions. The myth of the melting pot is just that, a myth.

By: ladder

ladder — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:25:34 +0000

nic: Actually, that’s my point. If you define yourself(as a group) by your traditions, then you will inevitably run into conflict with those in your group who don’t follow them. Thus breaking up the artificial state of Yugoslavia was the correct thing to do, same goes the the Czechs and Slovaks. Oh, and remember Milosovic was relatively tame in comparison to some of the others who could have had his job. “I don’t know of anyone who had that experience when moving to America.” So people didn’t change their names at Ellis Island in order to fit in? Afterall, it shouldn’t matter if your name is Schmidt or Smith right?

By: nic

nic — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:45:49 +0000

should immigrants be allowed to maintain a parallel cultural core with schools taught in their language, special courts for domestic issues Like where? What specifically are you referring to? I don’t know what you guys in the US read about Europe, I don’t know of any country where people immigrating from different nations just build entire separate provinces with separate legal and schooling systems. If anything, in education there is a heavier role of government and state institutions than private ones, so the system is even more the same for everyone than in the US. Among private schools, there are very very few religious schools in Europe that aren’t Christian and Catholic or Jewish. Muslims don’t have their own school system and don’t have their own legal system so there’s no such “allowed or not allowed” debate there. What people of any nationality and religion should always be allowed to do, in whatever country they choose to live, is to live according to any culture and beliefs they prefer. Why should I, if I move to the US, be forced to give up my native language, traditions, culture? By whom? The cultural police? Appointed by…. the National Review? I don’t know of anyone who had that experience when moving to America. In fact, because there are so many more immigrants or second and third-generation people with origins from all sorts of places, there are a lot more opportunities than in most of current Europe of being able to maintain your own background and, if you want (not everybody does), strong ties with a local community of people with your same background and native language, even when you move from your native country. The only thing that’s demanded of any citizen and any immigrant, whether they are citizens already or not yet, is compliance with the laws of that country they reside in. There’s nothing in a modern legal system that requires one culture, one religion, one ethnicity. I thought that is what the US example can offer in positive terms.

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:23:53 +0000

Interesting point, James, though I am not sure if I agree that the way the term “assimilation” is used in the US is as you suggest (though I do not doubt the result). When we (in the USA) speak of “assimilated Jews”, for instance, the emphasis is on how the new immigrants have adopted the language, customs, mores etc etc of America. How the majority culture has or has not changed is not part of the usage. Nevertheless, the larger issue is clear: should immigrants be allowed to maintain a parallel cultural core with schools taught in their language, special courts for domestic issues etc etc OR should they be simultaneously invited to join the majority culture and discouraged from staying insular in their own? The US answer is clear and is, I believe, the one which Europe must adopt.

By: james

james — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:52:23 +0000

There is a fundamental difference between the US and Europe in the application of the word “assimilation”. In the US it implies that both the new members of society and the existing society change. This idea is the fundamental source of the “melting pot” myth. The amount of change on each side is largely left up to the people and not regulated at the government level. The major exception is that of the default language being English. Europe seems to use the word to imply only the new members change.

By: nic

nic — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:52:48 +0000

“Ethnic Nationalism isn’t a delusion, it is the natural state of human community.” Heil, yeah! because the balkanic model is exactly what we should be looking at for inspiration. Let’s all play nationalist Serbs and Croatians and Albanians, it’s such a positive example of integration. Who needs a new Demosthenes, when we can have new Milosevics?

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:37:42 +0000

If Senator Graham is sincerely worried about our lethal oversights and mistakes, he should examine the orthodoxies and policies that have precluded the according of special scrutiny to radical Islamists in mosques and religious schools across America. Most operated with impunity for decades under the exemptions provided by the false gods of “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Political correctness was the main cause of 9/11??? It’s a rather extraordinary claim. ____________________________________ I expect Senator Graham has already “examinin[ed] the orthodoxies and policies that have precluded the according of special scrutiny to radical Islamists in mosques and religious schools across America” although he may not at the time thought of them in such terms, or realized he was communing with “false gods of ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism.’ “ The “orthodoxies and policies” are located in the US constitution, most specifically in the first and fourteenth amendments. There also a supreme court case the history and nature of which is directly (and ironically) related to the subjects discussed on this thread. “Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) was an important early 20th century United States Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to privacy… Under the influence of the Ku Klux Klan, the voters of Oregon passed a ballot measure in November 1922 which required all children between the ages of 8 and 16 to attend public schools… In a 9-0 decision, the Court declared the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (1) “Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. “Society of Sisters… has long devoted its property and effort to the secular and religious education and care of children, and has acquired the valuable good will of many parents and guardians. … In its primary schools many children between those ages are taught the subjects usually pursued in Oregon public schools during the first eight years. Systematic religious instruction and moral training according to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are also regularly provided. [...] “No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare. “The inevitable practical result of enforcing the act under consideration would be destruction of [Society of Sisters] … primary schools, and perhaps all other private primary schools …within the state of Oregon. [The Society of Sisters] are engaged in a kind of undertaking not inherently harmful, but long regarded as useful and meritorious. Certainly there is nothing in the present records to indicate that they have failed to discharge their obligations to patrons, students, or the state. And there are no peculiar circumstances or present emergencies which demand extraordinary measures relative to primary education. “[W]e think it entirely plain that the Act …unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children …under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (2) “The case has been cited as a precedent in over 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade.” (3) 1. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia accessed December 15, 2004 at URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters 2. Pierce V. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary , 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Findlaw for Legal Professionals, accessed December 15, 2004 at URL http://laws.findlaw.com/us/268/510.html 3. Pierce, Wikipedia, supra note 1.