• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nationalism vs. Racism/xenophobia

WI Crippler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15,427
Reaction score
9,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
With the Brexit results, there is a lot of commentary stating that the movement is rooted in racism/xenophobia and nationalism.

Is it fair to compare and draw a correlation between nationalism and racism?

I'm sure a lot of true actual racist elements in a society are going to trend towards nationalistic tendencies as it can be a vehicle towards their goals. But is the concept of nationalism itself rooted in racism, or do racists simply utilize it as a tool towards their goals/ideology?

To me nationalism implies a desire for ones own country to be self determined towards the goals of its own society. Whether those are economic, diplomatic, defense, immigration policy etc....These things can (and should IMO) exist independently of racial motivations.

Was Germany's atrocities throughout Europe last century still too fresh to embrace nationalist ideals? Is this the driving factor in people eschewing any sort of nationalistic tendencies in favor of globalism?

And is the rejection of nationalistic notions purely reserved for western society? Borders are deemed less important than human rights in western civilization, but then the notion of sovereignity is almost worshipped for nations who fall outside this realm. Iraq being the freshest reminder of how we "violated their sovereignity" even though human rights were violated on several occasions. We (meaning western civilization as a whole) are careful not to put troops in places ( there are places all over the world that remain untouched) where human rights atrocities are rampant. But establishing immigration policies that protect and favor our own nation or British voting to leave an organization that can determine their immigration laws are considered racist and are denying of human rights.

Are borders and nationalism only important and necessary for perceived "weaker" nation states and thereby justified for them but frowned upon for us? Is our recognition of their sovereignity mean we ascribe that their desires are also rooted in racism? Or is it only western civilization that has racist intent when nationalism is declared?

My opinion is that nationalism is essentially a tool. The intent behind nationalism is what determines its utilization for good or evil, rather than the ideal of nationalism itself.
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems I remember one of my college professors blaming the brothers Grim for nationalism. I will have to think about this, long time ago.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
bsfromtx.jpg



I have no problem with nationalism. I encourage it.
 

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We have plenty of evidence of people who are clearly racist and clearly globalist. President Obama comes to mind. He's a racist and he supports no nation.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,640
Reaction score
50,291
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'd say it resulted from a pragmatic decision to keep Britain, Britain.... rather than an EU province overrun with people who have no vested interest in Britain-as-Britain.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,968
Reaction score
29,412
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The EU was a farce from the beginning, and created for one silly purpose; to be an economic equal to the US. There was never any unity of culture or anything else to hold it together. It was doomed to failure from the start.
 

Rogue Valley

Exordium and Terminus
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
67,958
Reaction score
51,764
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One of the Brexit platforms was anchored in the anti-migrant sentiment that has gained traction in many European nations.

The Brexit argument went: Leave the EU and regain total sovereignty and then we can close our borders to whomever we wish: asylum seekers, war refugees, immigrants, migrant workers, etc.

The overarching problem with this idea is that to survive, the Brexit UK will now have to negotiate new trade treaties with the EU bloc.

The EU has already made it crystal clear that any new trade treaty with the UK remains absolutely dependent upon the free movement of people.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,961
Reaction score
17,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
With the Brexit results, there is a lot of commentary stating that the movement is rooted in racism/xenophobia and nationalism.

Is it fair to compare and draw a correlation between nationalism and racism?

I'm sure a lot of true actual racist elements in a society are going to trend towards nationalistic tendencies as it can be a vehicle towards their goals. But is the concept of nationalism itself rooted in racism, or do racists simply utilize it as a tool towards their goals/ideology?

To me nationalism implies a desire for ones own country to be self determined towards the goals of its own society. Whether those are economic, diplomatic, defense, immigration policy etc....These things can (and should IMO) exist independently of racial motivations.

Was Germany's atrocities throughout Europe last century still too fresh to embrace nationalist ideals? Is this the driving factor in people eschewing any sort of nationalistic tendencies in favor of globalism?

And is the rejection of nationalistic notions purely reserved for western society? Borders are deemed less important than human rights in western civilization, but then the notion of sovereignity is almost worshipped for nations who fall outside this realm. Iraq being the freshest reminder of how we "violated their sovereignity" even though human rights were violated on several occasions. We (meaning western civilization as a whole) are careful not to put troops in places ( there are places all over the world that remain untouched) where human rights atrocities are rampant. But establishing immigration policies that protect and favor our own nation or British voting to leave an organization that can determine their immigration laws are considered racist and are denying of human rights.

Are borders and nationalism only important and necessary for perceived "weaker" nation states and thereby justified for them but frowned upon for us? Is our recognition of their sovereignity mean we ascribe that their desires are also rooted in racism? Or is it only western civilization that has racist intent when nationalism is declared?

My opinion is that nationalism is essentially a tool. The intent behind nationalism is what determines its utilization for good or evil, rather than the ideal of nationalism itself.

It has taken me a while to get to this thread and despite that, I will not be able to apply a fleshed out argument-let alone one that substantially differs from your own. Racism and xenophobia are side-effects (albeit, perhaps logical conclusions) of nationalism rather than a prerequisite of it. In addition to what you say, one may be able to point out that as Plato taught us, each State, each civilization must think itself deserving of its place and unique among the other entities out there. Some combination of these two are perhaps fictions, but they are (as of yet) practical necessities to governance.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,968
Reaction score
29,412
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simpleχity;1066044440 said:
One of the Brexit platforms was anchored in the anti-migrant sentiment that has gained traction in many European nations.

The Brexit argument went: Leave the EU and regain total sovereignty and then we can close our borders to whomever we wish: asylum seekers, war refugees, immigrants, migrant workers, etc.

The overarching problem with this idea is that to survive, the Brexit UK will now have to negotiate new trade treaties with the EU bloc.

The EU has already made it crystal clear that any new trade treaty with the UK remains absolutely dependent upon the free movement of people.

The UK is an economic powerhouse; it will be difficult for the EU to refuse them forever. It's also stupid and childish.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I'd say it resulted from a pragmatic decision to keep Britain, Britain.... rather than an EU province overrun with people who have no vested interest in Britain-as-Britain.

Problem is, none of that was true. In fact, Britain is far more bureaucratic than most of the EU, and the EU had given them a very long lead, even letting them have a dual immigration system, and even allows them to exempt themselves from some aspects of EU immigration all together (if not on paper, very much in reality, believe me).

Britain actually has a slightly lower percentage of immigrants than America does, and only let in a couple thousand immigrants from the Syrian crisis. In reality, Britain is overwhelmingly, well, British. The EU was lead more by them than the reverse.

In addition to that, keep in mind that Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted overwhelmingly to remain. Clearly they felt there was a benefit, and it isn't as though they have no immigrants. Ireland even has a sort of third-wheel immigration system (this **** gets complicated!) and they still voted to stay. This is uniquely a feeling of the English, who all voted to leave apart from Londoners.

And the English specifically do have a bit of a history of racist nationalism in recent decades. So much so, in fact, that almost no one flies the St. George's Cross anymore, the flag of England, because it's associated almost entirely with racist skinheads. Most English people and institutions fly the UK Union Jack instead, lest they be mistaken for something they'd rather not be.

Now, thing is, I don't have strong feelings about whether it's better for Britain to remain in the EU or not. I can see possible arguments for both. If the Brexit campaign had been run by sane people, I could have been swayed.

But with the campaign being run the way it was, yes, it was a campaign almost entirely about false information and racism, and we see that clearly in the fact that a party famous for racism was the primary proponent of it, and in the wave of racist crime that's followed as they do their victory lap.

It's quite clear what their motivation was. I'm sure there are some people who simply believed Brexit's completely made-up numbers, but they are simply ill-educated.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom