Why is civic nationalism so popular when history proves that ethnic nationalism is better?

Why is civic nationalism so popular when history proves that ethnic nationalism is better?

Other urls found in this thread:

scholar.harvard.edu/files/elliott/files/critical_han_studies_ch8_elliott.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You're shitposting past your bedtime mister.

>ethnic nationalism
>doesn't work
>is better

I know school's out, but you still shouldn't post here.

Civic nationalism allows for a degree of flexibility

Nationalism is just fetishisation of the state

>cucks who like getting their country overrun by abdul
because multiculturalism works so well in the Ottoman Empire and the Balkan region ?

>What are the USA, Russia, and China?

You don't get to be one of the big boys by basing your whole country on one ethnicity.

Please go back to t_d. I wish/his/ and the /pol/ explosion didn't have to share timelines.

Ethnic homogenization is out of picture for where it could apply.

They don't have any other choice
The end conclusion of ethnic nationalism would be extermination of other ethnic groups, troublesome if the said minorities are large in number
Not that I have any problem with that though

>all the most successful, richest, and long lived empires and countries have been civic nationalist or multicultural

What did actual history mean by this???

If the abduls are smart and have assimilated.
Why would i give a shit

You realize t_d exists to let people play with /pol/ memes away from the stormfags? Chill your tits.

Also troublesome if the home countries of those ethnic minorities decides they don't like you purging their people.

Which is why you could purge/pogrom Jews and other stateless peoples, but not nations that have a state.

The Chinese minority in much of SEA is not well liked, but the governments can't really touch them besides affirmative action for their own people.

Give me one example of this, cuck

China and Russia are almost all one race and America's dominance comes from when it was majority white

>ethnic nationalism is better?
And that was, what? 200 years ago?

Prior to them: the only civic nationalist entities you could find were the Roman Empire, Medieval City States, Babby USA, and the French Republic.

The rest were fucking Monarchies. Many of which aren't necessarily nationalist considering the end-all of many premodern Kingdoms and Empires was the Dynasty.

>China
Officially "Five Races, One Nation." Shills its pluralism a lot officially.
>Russia
It's called a "Federation" for a very good reason.
>USA
>The "white race."
Which one? The Germanics? The WASPs? How about the Italians, the Irish, or Slavs? Are those white too?

>correlation = causation
Protip, America was mostly great when we bombed the rest of the worlds industry to shit

>shilling is the truth
>Russian federation is still mostly slavic
>yes they are all white

>babby USA
>civic nationalist

Not quite, USA was effectively ethnically homogenous and intentionally so up until the 60s.

Meant for

>history
>proves
History is systematic nonsense. It proves whatever ideologues want it to prove.

>Slavs
>Irish
>Anglos
>Same race
Pick one. The one true master race is the Anglo protestant race

>China
>Five Races

Yeah, all chink races. Same with Russia. The problems with racial differences come into play when the races are truly different, ie Native Americans compared to Africans compared to Indo European peoples. Arbitrary slant eye population #71 doesn't have enough unique characteristics to truly consider them racially separate.

China - all 5 ethnics very culturally similar, russia - governed by europeans, usa - implying there is a difference between germams and slavs, fuck off nazi

Roman empire
Eastern roman empire
British empire
America
Etc etc

At the end of the day, all human achievements come from white men, what's wrong with creating a country based around that? nigs don't do anything and even they think they are entitled to country and believe in ethnic nationalism

Divide and conquer shill. Europeans are mostly mixed with one another and have shared cultures and histories dating back to when the Roman Empire ruled most of it.

You neither.

lmao

Americans certainly didn't think of their fellow "white" Irish.

or their "fellow white" G*rmans

It's true, many new European immigrants were poor and weren't assimilated which was undesirable. But that's the key difference. Irish are capable of it, Germans definitely are, many Europeans have blood of all kinds of people from Europe within them.

Divide and conquer shill. Humans are mostly mixed with one another and have shared cultures and histories dating back to when the Neanderthals ruled most of it.

What did you contribute to any of them?
Are you just going to take credit for them because you are the same skin colour as them?

or their "fellow white" It*lians
or their "fellow white" P*les
or their "fellow white" Sp*niards

Now you're committing a fallacy. Europeans have a shared identity from not even 2 millenia ago when an Empire had most of them unified under a single culture, and most of them had the same environmental pressures resulting in the same evolutionary traits developing.

Blacks down in Africa who still have inferior planning skills and lower overall intelligence as well as worse ability to prepare for consequences have those from being in a totally different environment from Europe for tens of thousands of years. These changes mean that Africans are truly not compatible, the developmental difference is simply too great for cultural assimilation to account.

>Germanics/Nordic barbarians
>"""civilized latins"""
Just go to /pol/ if you want to spout ignorant pseudoscience

>overall
So you don't care if the smart ones are in your country?

Nice strawman buddy, unfortunately that's not even remotely what I was addressing, nor does what you're implying actually conflict with what I said.

If there was some kind of infallible filter, it would not be as bad. We don't control for that factor though even if we effectively could. But even then it's well known that it would still cause issues with social trust and cohesion which race absolutely has an effect on. In other words, if that were the case it wouldn't be as big of a deal but it would still certainly have its effects.

In regards to the Chinese "being all Han", it's only because their assimilation of the different "Han" ethnicities have been so successful.

The modern label of "Han" encompasses sub-cultures like Sichuanese, Hakka, Min, Wu, and Cantonese. These cultures and their dialects developed in parallel, and only the strong civic state was able to unify pronunciation and other aspects of culture.

If you go to places like Thailand, where the Hakka immigrants still kept their own traditions, they are very different from the "Han" Chinese that includes the mainland Hakka people.

>all russians are the same race

Damn why do i keep taking this shit b8

Slavs didn't even show up in Europe until the Roman empire was collapsing, occupying land formerly occupied by Germanic peoples. What little evidence there is suggests the Slavs came from beyond the Urals, far away from Europe.

Where is their shared identity from the Roman Latins? Or should they not be considered "White".

Better yet, the Magyars, who were steppeniggers. Should they be considered "White". If they weren't "White", how did they integrate well in Europe and form a union with the "White" Germanic Austrians, despite their lack of "Whiteness".

>Europeans have a shared identity from not even 2 millenia

>All chink races.
OK

Jesus, even the Han alone is pretty diverse.

>using the word "cuck" unironically
>expecting anyone to not treat you like a fucking retard

Go to bed, faggot.

He already did. Every shitty non argument he made got totally btfo

You know what's an ethnicity? Race isn't ethnicity.

Are there even any examples of ethnic nationalism producing successful countries?

The only one I can think of is Israel and it only works because america wont let it fail

>In regards to the Chinese "being all Han", it's only because their assimilation of the different "Han" ethnicities have been so successful.
The historical Han was limited both in geographical scope and importance,the Han ethnicity you see today is the result of late Qing nationalism and Western concepts of ethnicity adopted by revolutionaries.

1.The ethnonym had to be repeatedly reintroduced by nomadic conquerors as an ethnonym for northern Chinese they ruled. Southern Chinese weren't considered Han prior to the Ming.
scholar.harvard.edu/files/elliott/files/critical_han_studies_ch8_elliott.pdf

2. Local "Han" identified with toponyms,dynasties and lineages instead of an ethnicity based on common descent.

>The modern label of "Han" encompasses sub-cultures like Sichuanese, Hakka, Min, Wu, and Cantonese. These cultures and their dialects developed in parallel, and only the strong civic state was able to unify pronunciation and other aspects of culture.
For the former territories of Ba-Shu,Chu,Wu they were incorporated into Chinese civilization with the Qin conquest while a Chu native was the progenitor of the Han dynasty. These regions were not considered quintessentially "Chinese" and could have easily become a modern day splinter state(Vietnam) if it wasn't for the constant reunification.

The Hakka,Wu and Yue speakers are descended far later migrations and derive their identities and from northern migrants while having a significant native linguistic/genetic substratum e.g. Latin America.

>If you go to places like Thailand, where the Hakka immigrants still kept their own traditions, they are very different from the "Han" Chinese that includes the mainland Hakka people.
Hakka are an interesting case. Their ancestors postdate the arrival of Yue and Min speakers but their heavy intermarriage with the She natives places them between the two genetically.

somehow your point doesn't apply to these 5 races though - near easterners, north africans, iranians, meds, slavs

all marginally different, yet basically the same - white, caucasian whatever you like as the equivalent of 'chink'

>exploitation of forcefully subjugated ethnic groups for the benefit of the master ethnic group == civic nationalism
what did shitposter-kun mean by this?

>eventually giving members of those groups citizenship and full political rights =/= civic nationalism

What did the gaul mean by this?

And yet none of the colonies wanted to remain under britain. Really makes you think.

You basically mean that mass settlement of wildly different races and cultures into a fragile democracy is destabilising, which it is. Even though European states were civic-nationalists it was implied that they would be 95% white countries. Europe and the US was so white that Europeans argued over narrow and ridiculous definitions of whiteness (e.g. slavs are not white, Irish are not white, italians are not white, etc) which was just petty racism of a classification that was practically non-existent, essentially pseudoscience.

The fact people talk about Europeans as a single race or entity, that people on the left and the right use the internationalist """white""" to classify all European and Western people shows to what extent the West has become multicultural. The immigrants coming into Europe are so wildly to Europeans that these old racial distinctions break down. The difference between the immigrants and indigenous populations are so much greater than the differences within the indigenous populations, therefore "whiteness" has developed as a concept. Pic related, a pure aryan yank.

If you have a clean house you may notice a little stain on the carpet, but if someone smears shit all over the walls, you think "hmm, I'd better clean this shit off my walls".

I often wonder what was going through these artists head when they came up with shit like 2 dogs for Norway and Sweden, and why the fuck is a chink at the top of Russia?