[wat0n]

This is my first "what am I" thread since I joined this forum, I think.

My beliefs:

1) I think that nations do exist, and are defined by a shared identity over anything else. That is, a person is part of a nation because he wants to be part of it, and identifies with it. A nation is formed by a group of people who willingly identify as part of it. This shared identity can arise (in order of importance) because of a shared culture (with religion being an expression of it, up to an extent), history, language, ancestry or a belief of the sharing of any of these, but this shared identity can also be caused due to other factors. However, I think this common identity will be stronger when the persons share a common culture, history or language (I don't really think that having a common ancestry is really needed, though in practice if people have a common culture, history and language then they will probably have a common ancestry as well), I think having a common culture is particularly important for this. Still, just because the members of a nation do not share a common culture, language or history it does not necessarily mean that it's impossible for the people who form it to have a strong shared identity.

2) I also believe on the existence of ethnic groups, according to the the modern definition (*). As such, ethnicity is not the same as race. Nations and ethnic groups may overlap significantly, but I don't see why a nation can't be composed of many ethnic groups or why an ethnic group can't be composed of many nations.

(*) Which according to wikipedia is:

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2] ,[3] "...in general it is a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith".[4]

Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness. Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are called ethnogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

3) I think that ethnic groups are not defined by strict boundaries, multiethnic families can exist and a person can be part of more than one ethnic group. For example, I have a mixed background: My father was a Chilean white-mestizo and my mother is Jewish. And I identify both as a Chilean and as an ethnic Jew.

4) I believe that every nation (in particular, the Jewish and Palestinian peoples) has a right to self-determination, with the usual meaning for the term. However, self-determination movements should avoid violence to attain their goal and deliberate attacks against civilians (regardless of who they are) are forbidden.

5) I don't believe there are some superior nations or ethnic groups or that there are some inferior nations and ethnic groups.

6) I think that multinational states can exist, however, if a multinational State leads to unstoppable violence between the different national groups then it should split. Also, if one of the nations wants to be independent it should be allowed, with some territorial negotiations depending on the case. I don't believe that land is sacred, and territorial adjustments are legitimate and even desirable depending on the case. Still, coexistence should be encouraged before things deteriorate to this level.

7) I believe that nations (or perhaps more precisely, the people that conform them) have the right to attempt to preserve their culture, language, tradition and the teaching of their common history, however, I'm against limiting immigration for achieving these ends because cultural isolation tends to cause backwardness. Instead, I think that the State has the right to promote the culture of the nation(s) that define it, without repressing the culture of the minorities in the State (and without necessarily promoting it either, though I'm not against the State doing so, and I also believe it depends a lot on the context. Minorities should have the right to have their own schools which would teach their history, language and culture and I'm not against them to be funded by the State - in fact I think it's advisable if the minority is big enough). The State should teach new immigrants about the local culture, customs, language and history, even if it is only for helping them to understand how does the country work and for helping them to settle down, and the State should not repress their culture (subject to respecting existing prohibitions, e.g. prohibitions against honor killings in Western countries if we consider Middle Eastern immigrants for example).

8 ) I'm in principle not against a world State, but it should come to exist voluntarily and not by force if it comes to be (if not, it's probable that it won't last long anyway). I'm also not against a world culture, language or even a single world-wide ethnicity and these may even become a reality in the distant future. As such, I'm not against globalization - in fact I moderately support it because it allows us to have contact with other cultures and broaden our horizons a little bit.

My questions:

1) Am I a nationalist? If so, am I an ethnic, civic or cultural nationalist? (I don't think I'm an ethnic nationalist, though, but I'm not sure if I could be described as a cultural or a civic nationalist. I know for sure I'm a zionist as I support the right to self-determination for Jews, but zionism is just one particular example of a nationalist ideology).

2) Regarding question 6), could it be said that I support a state-directed melting-pot policy? We don't have the debate on culture common in Europe and North America around here, so my only source for definitions is wikipedia.

[Aekos]

I believe that nations (or perhaps more precisely, the people that conform them) have the right to attempt to preserve their culture, language, tradition and the teaching of their common history

Would this include the right to teach new generations the mythology that usually passes for national/ethnic history, in the name of preserving tradition?

[Eran]

I believe that every nation (in particular, the Jewish and Palestinian peoples) has a right to self-determination, with the usual meaning for the term. However, self-determination movements should avoid violence to attain their goal and deliberate attacks against civilians (regardless of who they are) are forbidden.

What is the usual meaning of "self-determination"?

I would normally have said that a group of people living on a piece of land have a right not to be ruled by outsiders.

Is that what you have in mind?

I'm in principle not against a world State, but it should come to exist voluntarily and not by force if it comes to be

Every state, world, regional or local, without a single exception, came to exist by force. Can you think of a single exception?

Am I a nationalist? If so, am I an ethnic, civic or cultural nationalist?

You mentioned that national affiliation is a voluntary choice of individuals. What is your choice on this matter? Do you see yourself as part of a nation?

[wat0n]

Would this include the right to teach new generations the mythology that usually passes for national/ethnic history, in the name of preserving tradition?

Yes, the mythological parts too.

Is that what you have in mind?

Yes.

Every state, world, regional or local, without a single exception, came to exist by force. Can you think of a single exception?

Ok, then I should have said that it should come to be through referendums in the countries that would be joining (i.e. all of them).

You mentioned that national affiliation is a voluntary choice of individuals. What is your choice on this matter? Do you see yourself as part of a nation?

Yes. Also, I think that it's possible for one person to feel that (s)he belongs to more than one nation.

[Eran]

The so-called "right to self determination" has routinely been used by politicians and public activists as an excuse to give themselves more power, supposedly to "represent" the "national interest" of impacted groups.

The right not to be ruled by others is a very important one. But let's not pretend that it is important only when the "others" belong to a different national group. One can just as easily be oppressed by members of one's own national group, as history and news pages amply demonstrate.

As for referendums, those never present a full range of options. Just as in ordinary elections, you typically get to express preference as to whether to be ruled by group A or group B.

[wat0n]

The so-called "right to self determination" has routinely been used by politicians and public activists as an excuse to give themselves more power, supposedly to "represent" the "national interest" of impacted groups.

The right not to be ruled by others is a very important one. But let's not pretend that it is important only when the "others" belong to a different national group. One can just as easily be oppressed by members of one's own national group, as history and news pages amply demonstrate.

If we follow Nozick, he argues that the individuals conforming a society should agree to have a minimal state (and thus they excercise self-determination by doing this). The issue with nationalisms and multiculturalism is defining the boundaries of "society".

As for referendums, those never present a full range of options. Just as in ordinary elections, you typically get to express preference as to whether to be ruled by group A or group B.

Indeed, however in this case the referendum would be a yes or no question.

Still, please let's not derail this thread. I want to know how could my beliefs be labeled, we can debate them elsewhere.

[Eran]

Fair enough.

Let's explore your view further then.

You define yourself as Zionist because "I support the right to self-determination for Jews", but earlier you agreed with me to define self-determination as "a group of people living on a piece of land have a right not to be ruled by outsiders."

This definition of "self-determination" as applied to Jews is very different from the tenets of Zionism. Zionism was never about Jews living on a piece of land having the right not to be ruled by outsiders. Rather, Zionism called for an active move of Jews into the Land of Israel, so as to then facilitate their self-rule.

Today, Jews live in Israel as a matter of fact. You don't need to be a Zionist to support their right to rule themselves (and, indeed, nobody short of Hamas objects to that right).

With respect to the State of Israel, ask yourself whether you desire for Israel to be a Jewish state or a state for all its citizens.

If it is the latter, you might be a civic nationalist.

If it is the former, consider next your view with respect to non-Jewish Russians who assimilated into Israeli Jewish culture. Do you see the state as having equal commitment to those Russians as to proper Jews? If so, you are a cultural nationalist. Otherwise, you are an ethnic nationalist.

As for the question around "state-directed melting-pot policy", I think you probably support it to a moderate degree. Most Israeils, for example, supported the active attempts to assimilate Jews from different diasporas, even while emphasizing the different culture of Jews vs. non-Jews.

[wat0n]

This definition of "self-determination" as applied to Jews is very different from the tenets of Zionism. Zionism was never about Jews living on a piece of land having the right not to be ruled by outsiders. Rather, Zionism called for an active move of Jews into the Land of Israel, so as to then facilitate their self-rule.

Today, Jews live in Israel as a matter of fact. You don't need to be a Zionist to support their right to rule themselves (and, indeed, nobody short of Hamas objects to that right).

I disagree. Herzl himself considered the Patagonia as an option, and once it was decided that Palestine was better, mainstream Zionists preferred to get a political solution before moving people there. However, Jews (mostly Russian) started moving there because of the turmoil in the Russian Empire in 1905-1915.

With respect to the State of Israel, ask yourself whether you desire for Israel to be a Jewish state or a state for all its citizens.

If it is the latter, you might be a civic nationalist.

I think that the State of Israel should promote Jewish culture, without hindering the spread and development Arab and other cultures. Besides this, Israel should ideally not differentiate between Jews and non-Jews.

If it is the former, consider next your view with respect to non-Jewish Russians who assimilated into Israeli Jewish culture. Do you see the state as having equal commitment to those Russians as to proper Jews? If so, you are a cultural nationalist. Otherwise, you are an ethnic nationalist.

Yes, the state has an equal commitment to those people. I even consider them to be Jews, even if they don't follow Judaism or their parents aren't Jewish.

[Rei Murasame]

Entering late:

1) Am I a nationalist? If so, am I an ethnic, civic or cultural nationalist?

You sound like a civic nationalist.

2) Regarding question 6), could it be said that I support a state-directed melting-pot policy?

Yes, you are what is called a "cultural integrationist".

[wat0n]

Thank you Rei. This thread was mostly ignored

But I have a question, isn't being a cultural integrationist more compatible with being a cultural nationalist rather than being a civic one?

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, it doesn't work properly, and by that I am saying that you need to address some contradictions (or what you will have described to us will manifest as an odd form of integrationist cosmopolitanism), you caught it.

Basically this:

however, I'm against limiting immigration for achieving these ends because cultural isolation tends to cause backwardness.

I'm also not against a world culture, language or even a single world-wide ethnicity

In a way you already told yourself exactly what that contradiction would manifest as in the end, if it were carried forward, before I ever responded.

[Figlio di Moros]

Also, there's a contridiction here-

6) I think that multinational states can exist, however, if a multinational State leads to unstoppable violence between the different national groups then it should split. Also, if one of the nations wants to be independent it should be allowed, with some territorial negotiations depending on the case. I don't believe that land is sacred, and territorial adjustments are legitimate and even desirable depending on the case. Still, coexistence should be encouraged before things deteriorate to this level.

7) I believe that nations (or perhaps more precisely, the people that conform them) have the right to attempt to preserve their culture, language, tradition and the teaching of their common history, however, I'm against limiting immigration for achieving these ends because cultural isolation tends to cause backwardness. Instead, I think that the State has the right to promote the culture of the nation(s) that define it, without repressing the culture of the minorities in the State (and without necessarily promoting it either, though I'm not against the State doing so, and I also believe it depends a lot on the context. Minorities should have the right to have their own schools which would teach their history, language and culture and I'm not against them to be funded by the State - in fact I think it's advisable if the minority is big enough). The State should teach new immigrants about the local culture, customs, language and history, even if it is only for helping them to understand how does the country work and for helping them to settle down, and the State should not repress their culture (subject to respecting existing prohibitions, e.g. prohibitions against honor killings in Western countries if we consider Middle Eastern immigrants for example).

These are inherent contridictions- If you believe a nation has the right to protect it's interests, and to preserve it's heritage, but also to secede from a larger nation, then you have to understand the responsibility of a people to prevent the entrence of a foreign nation to whom their territory would be ceded. You most likely have an underestimated view of "Immigration", but we're at an unprecedented level of immigration ever in the world. All signs show there are actually quite large problems with multiculturalism, from shortening social capital to undermining national culture and unity.

[wat0n]

Well, I think the State should promote the local culture, not freeze it. Which is why I'm against limiting immigration to achieve this goal, cultural change is not necessarily bad, though it can/should only be relatively slow because if it is pushed too far (i.e. if one attempts to hasten cultural change) then tensions will arise within the country (depending on how different the cultures are).

I am in favor of limiting immigration for other reasons, though, including economic and security concerns.

Also, as I said I'm not really against a world state or ethnicity, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of it. I'm pretty much neutral towards the idea.

[Figlio di Moros]

No-one claims the local culture can be frozen, merely that it's the government's job to preserve it and direct it's evolution. Would America, overrun by Mexicans, continue to be America? Would Europe, populated by Berbers and Arabs, persist as it has? Rather, the goal should be for the nation to control how it evolves, what new aspects it adopts while preserving it's core self.

[wat0n]

Ah, I agree with that. I don't think that limiting immigration is necessarily the best tool for doing this or that the Government should try to coerce immigrants into assimilating, though. Social integration is a better tool, IMHO.

[Figlio di Moros]

Except excessive immigration leads to ghettoization, which limits integration.

[wat0n]

Ghettoization falls into the "economic" criteria, IMHO. If the state can't adequately provide welfare to immigrants ("adequately" meaning providing it as if they were locals while the State can sustain its finances in the long-run) then there is a compelling argument to either raises, cut welfare or cut immigration (or a mix of all of these). My guess is that most people prefer the latter, myself included.

Now if the immigrants can get welfare without endangering the welfare system and still form ghettos, it becomes more complicated but I'd still push for integration.

[Figlio di Moros]

Ghettoization involves ethnic enclaves, not necessarily economics; well-to-do Jews living in their own seperate communities would be considered a ghetto. The point being, it's an area the inhibits integration.

We also have to ask, why have immigrants on welfare, anyways? Why allow foreigners in to gain the priviledges of your society?

[wat0n]

Ghettoization involves ethnic enclaves, not necessarily economics; well-to-do Jews living in their own seperate communities would be considered a ghetto. The point being, it's an area the inhibits integration.

Indeed, it happens around here as well. I'm Jewish but I'm not disconnected from the rest of the country unlike a considerable part of the Chilean Jewry is. However, I think that opting for integration is better to deal with this issue when these ghettos are formed by well-off, educated foreigners, even if it is harder. BTW, forcing all schools to teach a minimum curricula is also a way of getting to social integration.

We also have to ask, why have immigrants on welfare, anyways? Why allow foreigners in to gain the priviledges of your society?

Well, in practice you can't really deny them healthcare or education for their kids. I also count those as welfare.

[Figlio di Moros]

If we're discussing legal immigration, I suppose not- however, it ought to be taken into consideration.

As far as Ghettos are concerned- the represent a multigenerational problem. Education might be a good move, but would barely mitigate further immigration, let alone full deghettoization.