Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures
what the fuck does this even mean, groups are defined by exclusion, as in group identity is contingent upon some shared commonality within said group in contrast to those outside the group, this definition is entirely tautological and fails to established any concrete criteria by which a ‘nation’ can even be considered a meaningful concept
Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem certain minorities as not truly being a part of the ‘national community’ as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.
lol, in other words, the only substantive basis for what could define a political unit/territory, how in the hell can you claim to stand behind a nation (something defined by commonality) when you don’t have any starndard of commonality other than ‘idk, like, I guess we’re all just here to support each other and be free and equal and stuff :)’
this shit is so vapid someone make me stop reading wikipedia articles at 4 in the morning
All of the above is completely correct. Which is why I posit that, somewhat relaxed, ethnic or cultural nationalism is vital to holding a society along liberal principles due to the simple fact that homogeneous societies require far less authority to govern than any multicultural society does.
Obviously when I bring up classical liberalism, I understand that the proponents of those beliefs just hadn’t thought about this yet because the kind of extreme multiculturalism that exists today simply did not exist back then, not even in the European states that governed regions of territory that played host to multiple unique ethnic groups can at all be called an example of the kind of multiculturalism I’m talking about.
I guarantee you they’d have probably agreed with the last paragraph, if they were faced with today’s challenges.
Liberalism was always about equality of opportunity and fighting for your nation’s freedoms. It is perfectly possible to arrange a liberal society along ethnonationalist lines. Sure, you might be able to just call it “liberalism, but…”, but you wouldn’t call the kind of society I am thinking about anything other than liberal all the same.
Liberalism has nothing to do with equality of results, and any allusions to the contrary simply come from adhering to shit-tier American political definitions. Obviously I don’t believe nationalism is at all compatible with the philosophy of "voting democrat and hoping that changes something"
However, the wikipedia article you’re probably looking at does say this:
Civic nationalism is the form of nationalism where the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry (see popular sovereignty), to the degree that it represents the “general will”.
This is 100% valid.
What sets me apart from the people who believe in this, though, is how I believe citizenship is obtained, and what privileges I believe it should provide.
This is where the “Starship Troopers” thing comes in.
I believe suffrage should be earned, through difficult, dangerous, or merely arduous service that proves one is willing to place his life in grave danger to protect both the people of his nation as well as their liberties. Not the state; but the people.
Where you would say ‘idk, like, I guess we’re all just here to support each other and be free and equal and stuff :)’, I would instead respond with “Because we’re citizens and we are part of this nation because we have fought to uphold its values, because we believe this nation’s culture and ideals are good enough to warrant such a thing.”
The state derives its political legitimacy from the active participation of the citizenry, and the citizenry are all individuals who have earned their right to actively participate in their nation’s democracy by proving that they actually have vested interest in defending the principles upon which democracies exist.
I would agree that homogeneous societies can function with less reliance on authority (places like iceland and switzerland are examples of this), greater commonality meaning less basis for conflict and all that, but it’s important to keep in mind that we’re 1) generally speaking not dealing with strictly homogeneous societies and 2) not dismissing the necessity for strong authority altogether, I’m sure corporate interests have much to gain from the entrance of foreign labor markets, but chances are the anglosphere obesity epidemic would definitely still be a thing even if muhammad wasn’t at the counter, western individualism has long been a problem that’s lead to everything from the protestant reformation to the the american rebellion, liberalism at its logical conclusion promotes anarchism and is entropically degenerative, as we can see from looking at the general cultural trajectory of various liberal democracies, the states are only one example, and regulating behavior is a totally legitimate function of the state given the absence of defunct social institutions that would have done so in the past
I concede that a nationalist liberal state is certainly possible, I just don’t think it’s a particularly sustainable or desirable social arrangement, and I’m not confident that it wouldn’t just collapse into something else given the very slippery track record of enlightenment moral dogma in redefining itself and gradually degenerate into the vulgar populist representative democracy we have today
nation is fundamentally about shared culture and shared way of life, which are ultimately properties emergent from race, that’s the corporeal and spiritual foundation for all cultral phenomenon between peoples of the world, you wouldn’t get hebrew if you had dropped koreans in israel, nor would you produce norse paganism by transplanting nigerians to denmark
we mostly see eye-to-eye on the foundations of citizenry, though admittedly I’m not particularly interested in democracy, nor would I be opposed to some kind of formal ‘second class citizenship’, take it for what you will
Mikhail Nesterov. “The Vision of Youth Bartholemew”.
Михаил Нестеров. “Видение отроку Варфоломею”.
The Harvest Moon is seen rising in the sky above the domes of the Smolny Cathedral in St. Petersburg, Russia on Sept. 8, 2014, marking the third and final “supermoon” of 2014. The phenomenon, which scientists call a “perigee moon,” occurs when the moon is near the horizon and appears larger and brighter than other full moons.
christianity is a religion where you eat the flesh and drink the blood of a god so you can be granted eternal life. that goes hard as fuck