Black nationalism

Celtiberian wrote:People already have the liberty to engage in or abstain from miscegenation, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who opposes that freedom of association. The notion that multiculturalism is responsible for exponentially increasing the rate of miscegenation is overstated (interracial relationships remain on the margins of society) and usually employed by white nationalists in order to foment ethnic tension (they begin by claiming 'white genocide' is being committed, and then typically attribute this to covert Jewish plots for world domination).

I am not speaking of just miscegenation, but the blending of races in one national body; regardless of if they breed with each other. I don't think the levels of miscegenation are as marginal as you state. They are ever increasing which results from (and in) multiculturalism. Granted, white nationalists hype up multiculturalism into being a solely Jewish plot of destroying the white race. I, on the other hand, view it as a way of subduing all peoples cultures, so they can be replaced by a cosmopolitan culture of purely capitalistic tendencies. This culture of consumerism and imperialism is at odds with most peoples cultures, which stem from tribalism, communalism, and agrarianism. Thus, it is necessary to destroy or water-down these original cultures, which is best done by blending traditionally agrarian and/or hunter-gatherer societies with more industrialized societies. White imperialists practiced this for centuries with native populations in order to subdue them. This was done with introducing European language, religion, and culture, to the native populations and breeding with them. The effectiveness of this tactic is evident in Mexico and Central America.

In that case, the term 'ethnicity' is more appropriate.

Yes, ethnicity would be a better term. I just don't like how black and white nationalists identify with their race alone, which would not preserve anything but skin color, rather than cultural traditions.

Cultures are in a constant state of flux, so that is an erroneously view to take. No contemporary nation's culture is identical to that practiced by their ancestors. Even Basques, who have experienced an atypical degree of ethnocultural isolation, practice a culture which is distinct from that of their forebears'. I'm not suggesting that efforts shouldn't be taken to ensure certain cultural elements are preserved, but rather that we accept the reality of cultural transmission and allow the masses to democratically decide the manner by which citizenship is granted and their culture maintained.

As for the ethnic dimension of culture, unless you can empirically prove that each ethnic population is endowed with unique biological traits which manifest themselves in cultural mores, you're merely speculating. I assure you that if, for instance, a Prussian child was to be reared in Florence, Italy by Italian parents, he would display many of the mannerisms common to that region upon reaching adulthood.

I can't say culture stems from DNA, as one cannot fully prove it one way or another. However, as a Christian, I believe we were created of different races with different original cultures, with the intent of them being preserved (or else why create them different in the first place). The Bible speaks much against miscegenation and blending of cultures. I take a lot of my beliefs from this and from national mysticism (not in the statist sense). I believe people are spiritually connected to their soil and ancestors and derive a lot of their strengths and cultures from that.

I, too, believe that requirements for citizenship and cultural preservation should be democratically decided. This is why I support balkanization, with the decentralized nations comprising a confederation, so people can decide, in more local terms, as to their own cultural needs.

The reason Caucasians may experience difficulty assimilating into Apache society is because of the sordid history between the two populations. Apache's likely resent individuals who descend from the group which nearly annihilated their people attempting to join their community, and therefore treat them in more of a hostile manner than would otherwise be the case. Another factor may well be ethnic, in that they may fear an inclusive cultural policy would result in the Apache ethnicity becoming extinct. Much of this behavior is irrational, of course, but certainly doesn't represent a fundamental incompatibility between the "spirit" of both populations. Mysticism doesn't qualify as a valid hypothesis, in my opinion.

Maybe mysticism isn't a provable point in and of itself, but there is no denying that the blending of cultures generally leads to either constant conflict or oppression of a "lower" caste. People naturally divide themselves and constantly try to oppress those them deem as "lessers". This is the natural reaction to multiculturalism, which is provable by all the examples throughout history. Only a mutual separation can bring balance and harmony between the races and ethnicities. This does not mean we cannot interact with each other, but simply not rule each other.

Also, I'd like to clarify that I believe it 100% necessary that the different races unify for the liberation of the proletariat.

I see this decentralization and mutual segregating concurring after the revolution, for the mutual benefit of those inclined to do so; segregation not being required for those who do not wish to do so.

penanarchocollective.blogspot.com/2005/11/ward-churchill-indigenism-anarchism.html

easttnskin wrote:I am not speaking of just miscegenation, but the blending of races in one national body; regardless of if they breed with each other.

On what basis do you reject ethnic pluralism? I'm of the view that unless it can be empirically demonstrated to have a deleterious effect on society in some capacity, a rational argument cannot be leveled against its continuation. I suppose one could cite contemporary instances of ethnic tension as an example of its negative impact on social cohesion, but that phenomenon would have to obtain under all possible economic arrangements in order to validate the argument. It's conceivable that ethnic strife is an epiphenomenon of bourgeois social relations, in which case it's subject to mitigation upon the ascent of communism.

I don't think the levels of miscegenation are as marginal as you state. They are ever increasing which results from (and in) multiculturalism.

Though the rate of miscegenation has undoubtedly increased in recent years, consider the following: biracial births account for a mere 7% of the national total and interracial unions represent no more than 8% of all marriages. Such figures indicate that it remains a marginal practice.

As for the causes, they're obviously multifaceted, but I believe it's largely attributable to advancements in the substructure of society no longer requiring the population to retain the racist ideology which characterized slavery and early capitalism. Multiculturalism isn't a project that was constructed by elite social engineers for idealistic purposes, but rather the logical outcome of capital's laws of motion—specifically its need for a 'flexible' labor market.

Granted, white nationalists hype up multiculturalism into being a solely Jewish plot of destroying the white race. I, on the other hand, view it as a way of subduing all peoples cultures, so they can be replaced by a cosmopolitan culture of purely capitalistic tendencies. This culture of consumerism and imperialism is at odds with most peoples cultures, which stem from tribalism, communalism, and agrarianism.

Consumerism may also play a role, certainly.

Thus, it is necessary to destroy or water-down these original cultures, which is best done by blending traditionally agrarian and/or hunter-gatherer societies with more industrialized societies. White imperialists practiced this for centuries with native populations in order to subdue them.

It is my understanding that the native populations encountered during the colonial era (and earlier imperialist epochs) were either exterminated outright or taught the culture of the imperial force so as to simplify administrative procedures. It had little to do with fabricating new markets, as the indigenous populations which were kept alive were primarily used as sources of cheap labor for the extraction of raw materials. For example, the natives exploited by the East India Company consumed very little of the tea they were producing; it was instead shipped to the more lucrative markets of Europe and North America.

I can't say culture stems from DNA, as one cannot fully prove it one way or another. However, as a Christian, I believe we were created of different races with different original cultures, with the intent of them being preserved (or else why create them different in the first place). The Bible speaks much against miscegenation and blending of cultures. I take a lot of my beliefs from this and from national mysticism (not in the statist sense). I believe people are spiritually connected to their soil and ancestors and derive a lot of their strengths and cultures from that.

We appear to have reached an impasse. Since you're a theist and I'm a metaphysical materialist, it's unlikely that we will agree on the parameters of what qualifies as a legitimate argument on this subject. I will, however, repeat that, since religion is fundamentally an issue of personal faith, it shouldn't be allowed to influence public policy since the latter is meant to address worldly issues in an impartial manner.

I, too, believe that requirements for citizenship and cultural preservation should be democratically decided. This is why I support balkanization, with the decentralized nations comprising a confederation, so people can decide, in more local terms, as to their own cultural needs.

Balkanization negates confederation, as the former entails a mutual hostility between units whereas the latter is dependent upon their ability to cooperate with one another. Frankly, I believe National-"Anarchists" make a fetish out of decentralization and advocate territorial divisions which are far smaller than what people would decide upon. But if you're genuinely of the view that the working class should democratically determine how to settle the national question, we're essentially in agreement with one another.

Maybe mysticism isn't a provable point in and of itself, but there is no denying that the blending of cultures generally leads to either constant conflict or oppression of a "lower" caste.

See above.

People naturally divide themselves and constantly try to oppress those them deem as "lessers". This is the natural reaction to multiculturalism, which is provable by all the examples throughout history. Only a mutual separation can bring balance and harmony between the races and ethnicities. This does not mean we cannot interact with each other, but simply not rule each other.

You're naturalizing a phenomenon with appeals to history alone. This will not suffice to settle the question, as an equally valid hypothesis is that this behavior is caused by the competitive, hierarchical, and possessive ethos which characterizes bourgeois society. People voluntarily choosing to separate themselves conforms with the basic principle of free association and therefore doesn't necessitate the geographic separation you support. Should ethnic oppression nevertheless persists into communism, the people will possess the means by which to address the issue—whether or not segregation will be considered is unknowable.

Also, I'd like to clarify that I believe it 100% necessary that the different races unify for the liberation of the proletariat.

I'm pleased to learn that you adhere to this position.