A Different Approach

TheocWulf wrote:That statement and the inherit contradiction of it coming from an American who was telling English people that our culture is in some way abstract and we should accommodate other cultures and visa versa,when your people ethnically cleansed a people of the very land you are typing from now.

And I don't drink on a school night thanks.

No, how is that a contradiction? I did not support it. I was born here. My grandparents were all immigrants. Learn how to use the damn quote button.

Who are you the forum police?

Every American is an immigrant except of course native ones.By your thinking if in 200 years time Euroamericans lived on reservations there "Abstract" culture along with there land,heritage and language all gone and the land settled by Mexicans invaders a few generations later Mexicans would be absolved of any wrong doing?,And ok as long as they respected each other and vice versa?

The sins of parents do not transfer to their children, so yes. I would oppose this hypothetical invasion since that would be a violation of the autonomy of the people that live here.

Good I would aswell.That being the case why do you suppose to tell English people-

Red Aegis wrote:Nationalism doesn't mean that you have to worship your culture. It only means that you don't want to force other cultures to change to accommodate yours or the other way around.

When our national identity is being destroyed.

Also if our socialism is to be national then it stands to reason that a nation of many cultures like America will be happy with that while nations with a native cultures like England might not want the same?

TheocWulf wrote:When our national identity is being destroyed.

You really are illiterate aren't you? I just said that I would oppose any imperialistic actions, so why would you think that I supported the destruction of any culture.

Also if our socialism is to be national then it stands to reason that a nation of many cultures like America will be happy with that while nations with a native cultures like England might not want the same?.

Fine. I said that the people should decide. If you don't understand that this was what I was saying then you really need to work on reading comprehension.

So why say?

Red Aegis wrote:My nationalism has nothing to do with a fear of the destruction of some sort of abstract identity.

You need to work on not being a penis you Petite bourgeois intellectual.

Anyway I'm off to bed work to be done in the morning

Night

TheocWulf wrote:You need to work on not being a penis you Petite bourgeois intellectual.

Anyway I'm off to bed work to be done in the morning

Night

I doubt that you know what petite bourgeois is.

Sadly this discussion is going nowhere other than to the recycle bin. However it is a debate that does have some merit, or could have. Therefore I am going to continue posting but in a new thread in the reactionary section as I've a feeling that it wont be long before a mod arrives to move it anyway.

I'm sure the Mods find nothing reactionary about socialism having a ethnic and/or national flavour to it.

In answer to the question on this thread, I see building within communities is the way forward. If there are a few likeminded people across the country unite them and let them take the case forward in their area.

Regarding culture, it is up to all of us to keep our own specific cultures alive, but cultural festivities should be inclusive to people from all ethnic backgrounds.

Modgardener wrote:Regarding culture, it is up to all of us to keep our own specific cultures alive, but cultural festivities should be inclusive to people from all ethnic backgrounds.

Why should they,what if one group had certain religious or cultural objections to outsiders taking part.What then force them to be inclusive?.

TheocWulf wrote:Why should they,what if one group had certain religious or cultural objections to outsiders taking part.What then force them to be inclusive?.

I freely admit that I feel a lot more comfortable with people of my kind and often find it hard to relate to people of other races when I mix with/encounter them, not that I hate them or see them as inferior, just I can easily find their ways hard to deal with for me personally.

My problem with white nationalism/white separatism however is that it tends to take a very dogmatic approach to these issues- the flipside of the coin to the multicultists/professional "anti-racists".

Hopefully if the social-engineers are taken out of the picture things will find a natural balance/solution.

Paradosis wrote:I freely admit that I feel a lot more comfortable with people of my kind and often find it hard to relate to people of other races when I mix with/encounter them, not that I hate them or see them as inferior, just I can easily find their ways hard to deal with for me personally.

My problem with white nationalism/white separatism however is that it tends to take a very dogmatic approach to these issues- the flipside of the coin to the multicultists/professional "anti-racists".

Hopefully if the social-engineers are taken out of the picture things will find a natural balance/solution.

No, that is a racist stance. You are saying that another race annoys you because of the way that they act. This is wrong because it is not the race that annoys you but the culture which the person adopted or was born into. If you have a problem with certain cultural quirks than you either just don't recognize them as such or you just have little tolerance for deviation. I don't think that you are referring to big things like making the woman walk behind the man; that annoys me.

Red Aegis wrote:No, that is a racist stance. You are saying that another race annoys you because of the way that they act. This is wrong because it is not the race that annoys you but the culture which the person adopted or was born into. If you have a problem with certain cultural quirks than you either just don't recognize them as such or you just have little tolerance for deviation. I don't think that you are referring to big things like making the woman walk behind the man; that annoys me.

Its not a "stance" though- its just the way I feel. If I said everybody should feel the same way I do than that would be a stance.

Paradosis wrote:Its not a "stance" though- its just the way I feel. If I said everybody should feel the same way I do than that would be a stance.

That is nice. How is that feeling not racist?

Red Aegis wrote:That is nice. How is that feeling not racist?

It would be racist if it invoked hatred or feelings of superiority in me. It doesnt.

TheocWulf wrote:Why should they,what if one group had certain religious or cultural objections to outsiders taking part.What then force them to be inclusive?.

Well I see somebody doesn't like that statement but the question remains how would you make people who don't want outsiders as part of their religion or culture be inclusive?
It's like Rev left in here sometimes
FML

TheocWulf wrote:Why should they,what if one group had certain religious or cultural objections to outsiders taking part.What then force them to be inclusive?.

I know of one comrade in North Devon who is invited to cultural celebrations of various ethnic groups. There are also organisations promoting this across the country (our local one is called 'Imagine), so inclusivness can work and it is up to the individual whether they participate or not. Likewise it is also good to see people of other ethnic backgrounds celebrating St.George's Day.

Religion is different and some ceremonies have always been restricted to persons of that faith.

Modgardener wrote:I know of one comrade in North Devon who is invited to cultural celebrations of various ethnic groups. There are also organisations promoting this across the country (our local one is called 'Imagine), so inclusivness can work and it is up to the individual whether they participate or not. Likewise it is also good to see people of other ethnic backgrounds celebrating St.George's Day.

I think that kind of nonsense has been pushes to far already.On my travels of Asia and the Middle East I saw flourish native cultures that have lived on practically unchanged for hundreds of years,followed by people who family's have lived in that town/village ect for hundreds of years its proper blood and soil stuff.Our native culture is about more than sticking a marque up and inviting the ethnics over,it's about us our ancestors our descendants and our family's and friends.In no way should our people be put off attending for the sake of inclusiveness.

Religion is different and some ceremonies have always been restricted to persons of that faith.

Most native religions like Heathenry,Shinto,Zoroastrianism,Rastafarian ect are folk religions and tied up with the very idea of culture I'm talking about.Do the still get to be exclusive?.

I can clearly understand the whole "we should be able to keep to ourselves" thing, but it just makes me think of primitive tribes who throw spears at each other in the forest. Plus, it's unlikely to be a nationwide thing if it is an issue. One group of Swedes who reject outsiders from their cultural practices won't decide whether or not the entire nation does. There isn't likely to be a strict national cut off point with what they consider an "outsider" anyway.

I think that to exclude people based on race alone is silly, but culture is debatable. Paradosis, I'm guessing you have very few (if any) non-whites where you live? If so then I can understand why maybe you would feel uncomfortable around non-whites, even if they do adhere to the same way of life that you do.

But what makes you think the majority of the indigenous population in our country want anything to do with non indigenous population?.

What makes you think outside of the city's and larger towns where multiculturalism is not as rife people will enjoy exclusiveness.

DSN wrote:I think that to exclude people based on race alone is silly, but culture is debatable. Paradosis, I'm guessing you have very few (if any) non-whites where you live? If so then I can understand why maybe you would feel uncomfortable around non-whites, even if they do adhere to the same way of life that you do.

No I have been to a very multi-racial university on the UK mainland. I do feel very comfortable around Greeks (hence my Greek screen name) so dont see this an attack. Its just the way I feel- probably not important at all. Its a very complex question. I did support the BNP for awhile but I have moved on from there a lot.

Paradosis wrote:No I have been to a very multi-racial university on the UK mainland. I do feel very comfortable around Greeks (hence my Greek screen name) so dont see this an attack. Its just the way I feel- probably not important at all. Its a very complex question. I did support the BNP for awhile but I have moved on from there a lot.

This is part of the wider problem-The vast majority of the people I speak to say the same thing which leads me to believe the vast majority of the indigenous population probably have the same feeling however if you openly express that opinion the liberal left and the government can just accuse you of racism and being accused of being a "racist" (which you are not) is the equivelinet to be called a Witch in the 17th century.

There is nothing wrong with the principle of free association. Indeed, that is what the self-determination of nations is based upon. However, I think certain members are not being intellectually honest in their assessments of the social dynamics inherent to the issue of national identity. For example, it appears as though there in an inclination to regard 'nations' forged through brutal acts of imperialism as 'legitimate' constructs simply because such individuals maintain a bias in favor of the racial compositions and cultural norms inherent to those (national) organizational forms. At the same time, however, they bemoan the undemocratic nature of contemporary bourgeois immigration policies, etc. Both cases are the byproduct of the prerogatives afforded to the ruling classes of each political-economic system in question. It's therefore arbitrary to favor one form of national organization over the other.

I will again repeat that the only equitable solution to the national question resides in those policies that fall within the rubric of left-wing nationalism. Fetishizing the racial and cultural character of nations of bygone generations is a frivolous enterprise. The simple fact of the matter is that a rational public — no longer imbued with false consciousness — is unlikely to favor the notion of tearing their societies apart in order to restructure their demographic constitutions in accordance to some idealized conception of some previous epoch. Those who are not content with the national character of the societies in which they are a part should instead be afforded the opportunity to realize their national aspirations in a manner that is consistent with socialist principles.

Fair enough but I don't see my family,friends and workmates dropping their culture and identity and holding hands with those they see as outsiders because somebody from the party tells them it's a false construct.

It might sell in some places but I doubt it will sell in the the towns and villages of the north east of England.