Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you have pride in your race or nation, it is logical that you want it to prosper and retain (if not expand) influence, rather than surrender its position and become a potentially endangered minority. It is clear that mass immigration of other groups will reduce the influence of your race or nation by definition, since it will have to share power and control over the state (e.g., it would have 50% of the votes instead of 95%, to use a blunt example).
Realistically, this leaves you with two main options:
1) You strive towards a state where your group remains the unambiguous majority and everyone has roughly equal rights.
2) You strive towards a state where your group compensates numerical disadvantages with additional privileges, which are either 2a) direct and legislated (e.g., apartheid South Africa, early 20th century US South); or 2b) concealed, market-driven, or driven by informal ethnic ties (e.g., Brazil, Colombia, early 20th century industrial northern US).
2a and 2b are far less stable than 1, though they have some other advantages (such as the obvious benefits of exploiting the less privileged, less well-organised, less-educated, etc. groups). Besides, 2a is almost impossible to uphold nowadays due to international pressure, while 2b generally leads to massive corruption and often to violence or exodus (the classical Hutu-Tutsi scenario or the white flight scenario).
Pride in your nation is something entirely different than public displays of pride of one's race or ethnicity. The former unites us the latter divides us.
If you have pride in your race or nation, it is logical that you want it to prosper and retain (if not expand) influence, rather than surrender its position and become a potentially endangered minority. It is clear that mass immigration of other groups will reduce the influence of your race or nation by definition, since it will have to share power and control over the state (e.g., it would have 50% of the votes instead of 95%, to use a blunt example).
Realistically, this leaves you with two main options:
1) You strive towards a state where your group remains the unambiguous majority and everyone has roughly equal rights.
2) You strive towards a state where your group compensates numerical disadvantages with additional privileges, which are either 2a) direct and legislated (e.g., apartheid South Africa, early 20th century US South); or 2b) concealed, market-driven, or driven by informal ethnic ties (e.g., Brazil, Colombia, early 20th century industrial northern US).
2a and 2b are far less stable than 1, though they have some other advantages (such as the obvious benefits of exploiting the less privileged, less well-organised, less-educated, etc. groups). Besides, 2a is almost impossible to uphold nowadays due to international pressure, while 2b generally leads to massive corruption and often to violence or exodus (the classical Hutu-Tutsi scenario or the white flight scenario).
I think you forgot #3 where the majority group acknowledges that race is nothing more than a social construct and we all work toward the betterment of all people in the nation and realize that if one of us wins, we all win. If one of us loses we all lose.
Pride in your nation is something entirely different than public displays of pride of one's race or ethnicity. The former unites us the latter divides us.
Ones nation, race, and ethnicity are often closely related.
What divides us is negative stereotypes, racism, classism, and sexism. Having pride in ones race does not automatically equate to racism. It's the manner in which it's done that makes all the difference.
The goalposts have moved over the years over what "white" is. It is not a coherent identity, and white nationalism as such is based on an ill-defined premise at best.
"Black" is not a whole lot different, and in some circles it's somehow part of being "black" to reject being educated as some sort of white indoctrination. This mentality is, not unlike white nationalism, as destructive as it is stupid.
What divides us is negative stereotypes, racism, classism, and sexism. Having pride in ones race does not automatically equate to racism. It's the manner in which it's done that makes all the difference.
I never understood this pride in one's race or ethnicity. We are all just humans and didn't have a choice what race or ethnicity we were born into. It's kind of a group think when we are all individuals. There is good and bad in every race/ethnic group so to be proud of one's group is based on what?
Which means nothing when we try to tribalize ourselves, whether genetically or ideologically.
We are not in a "united state" of anything.
That's what I am opposed to and that's tribalism. You see that in many racial/ethnic groups. I think we are united by a common pride of our country though.
That's what I am opposed to and that's tribalism. You see that in many racial/ethnic groups. I think we are united by a common pride of our country though.
I look at the people treating politics as a Republican vs. Democrat football game where the goal is "winning," as opposed to doing the right thing for the sake of the right thing, as tribalist knuckledraggers too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
