Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguin
So natives can't live together with foreigners because they can't develop "real" (=ethnic) nationalism?
Where does the article state this conclusion?
I would really like to see how the "civic" nationalism is exclusively reserved for foreigners...
|
Culturally grown/educated own understanding of "identity" plays a role here. And if that "identity" of the foreigner collides with the "identity" of the native, both identities being expressed both in sentiments and thought-about views, then you have a problem: a conflict that cannot be solved without the one being dominated and overturned by the other, most likely by fighting of any kind, which can be physically, but must not be restricted to that, but can take on other forms of conflict as well. Even greater problems you have if the foreigner'S background
prohibits him by dogmatic order, or by education/brainwashing
prevents him to adopt to the native culture, which is true in case of religious such dogmas.
Quote:
|
I also think the terms of the study are badly chosen: while the so called "ethnic nationalism" is essentially what nationalism is, the proper term for the so-called "civic nationalism" is known since hundreds of years: patriotism.
|
Some French thinker said patriotism is kind of love to thy people and their culture and its heritage, rules and achievements. Nationalism tends to be more about hate against other nations, fighting them or minimising them. You cannot claim to be patriotic for another nation that you move into as a migrant when you still put our original cultural origin over that of your new home, or even just equal to it. there is a difference between immigration, and colonisation. The first means the newcomer adapts to the rules and dsettings of the new environment he has moved to. The latter means the newcomer tries to make the new environment like the one he has left at home, and/or doing so at the cost of the native population in the new environment.
For these reasons I for example strictly oppose German - typically leftist - ideas about dual citizenship. I also say it is not enough that a foreigner just obeys the law and pays taxes, that makes him a citizen of the new cou7ntry he lives in. There is more to the issue,. much more. Feeling of identity. Cultural shaping of mind, habits, emotions. Readiness to give up one's own past cultural identity in favour of adapting - ohne Wenn und Aber - to that of the new world one lives in. Like I was already no Christian anymore 25 ago when I still formally was in the church and had to pay church taxes, you do not become a German citizen al of a sudden just by paying taxes and not violating criminal laws. Certain pltila cirtcles inEurope thoiugh wants to minimise the issue to this, though, in ortder to continue with their social engineering experiment - unopposed and beyond reach of ciritical reflection and critcism, is possible.
But as a matter of fact Multi-Kulti worked with only some cultures and countries migrants came from. Wiuth the migration especially from Muslim countries, multi-culti not only has failed, but proves to be disastrous social consequences for the hosting European societies. So, here again one sees that migratiuon is not just migration. One needs to look at what places migration comes from. Some cause problems. Some do not.
And this is where we need to be choosy, welcoming the unproblematic ones if they are qualified and can contribute to our countries, but recting those that deamnd more than threy could give back, or cause problems in integration.
Just throwing people without discriminating them into one pot and stirr and expect that to go well - that is an illusion.