Is ethnonationalism inherently racist and/or hateful?

An ethno state is racist by definition as you are ascribing social traits to races whole race collectively.

Nope. Human populations differ biologically. The differences may manifest socially, but are genetic.

"Racist" is defined as prejudice or discrimination towards people of a certain race, or believing that one's own race is somehow superior. I don't think acknowledging that human populations are different (and then suggesting that these populations may thrive in different areas) fits this definition - at all.

Nope. Human populations differ biologically. The differences may manifest socially, but are genetic.

"Racist" is defined as prejudice or discrimination towards people of a certain race, or believing that one's own race is somehow superior. I don't think acknowledging that human populations are different (and then suggesting that these populations may thrive in different areas) fits this definition - at all.

im not an advocate for an ethnostate but japan is a good example of what would be ideal. any ethnicity can live there but its mostly japanese people there

how does that sound animalistic or whatever. theyre getting paid to not have kids but they're still able to have kids if they want? wouldnt bother me tbh

I don't think that advocating for an ethnostate is inherently racist. As I said somewhere above, I reckon someone can be both a "white" and a "black" nationalist at the same time - so could argue that every ethnicity needs an ethnostate. Imo it is not racist or hateful to believe that ethnic groups need their own identity and their own countries in which that identity can thrive.

I'm not entirely sure that multiculturalism works, and it's my view that different cultures are at least somewhat a result of different races/ethnicities. I'm not proposing the idea that an ethnostate will solve all of our current societal problems, however it's easy to see why some people would think that - and I don't believe it to be a racist proposal either.

i think its like how men and women are different. both genders are suited for different things

i also guess mix race people are genetic gods then

Yes, but you'll do that because you don't want minorities having children, ergo you don't want minorities period. No point in doing this when you can just ban immigration if you're in power. Yeah the UN is going to have an issue with you but they allow human rights abuses to happen on half the planet, they aren't going to stop you.


You're conflating ethnonationalism and an ethnostate here.

Ethnonationalism is the simple belief that an ethnic group should have an identity. An ethnostate is a state comprised of just one ethnic group and not allowing others in.

One of those is discriminatory and one of them isn't necessarily.

'Imo it is not racist or hateful to believe that ethnic groups need their own identity and their own countries in which that identity can thrive' That's ethnonationalism, not an ethnostate. An ethnic group can be a majority of it's own state and still hold minorities, while still hosting a thriving culture.

I'd agree that multiculturalism in the way some people define it does not work. I think in terms of immigration, immigrants can retain some of their customs but they must respect the culture of the native population. Trying to mesh foreign cultures into the native one is just going to piss natives off, because they will feel that their culture is being infringed upon.

I still hold that the very idea of an ethnostate is pretty discriminatory and xenophobic. To want a nation free of immigrants and other non-natives or those with non-native background presumes that there is something wrong with them.

Nope. Human populations differ biologically. The differences may manifest socially, but are genetic.

"Racist" is defined as prejudice or discrimination towards people of a certain race, or believing that one's own race is somehow superior. I don't think acknowledging that human populations are different (and then suggesting that these populations may thrive in different areas) fits this definition - at all.

Sorry, didn't mean to conflate the terms.

whilst there are biological differences between human populations, I recognise that sometimes the lines drawn between races are quite arbitrary

Also, if we were to look at, say, European genetic admixture, where would the cut-off percentage be? I just don't think it would work.

I don't think that all immigration is bad either, and I don't particularly hate any group of people. I am in favour of much stronger borders though, and think that Britain should remain pretty ethnically homogeneous.

Thanks for having a civil conversation by the way - a lot of people seem to enjoy shouting people down during discussions about topics like this.

And they also have radically different environmental factors and cultural factors. What we dont see is a the same environment and culture everywhere but one group of people just happened to look different and differ biologically. Moreover they aren't consistent to race specifically you have far too many outliers to reasonably make decisions at a race level or even a country level. Its not like these differences are like the amount of legs people are born with, where 99.99% of the population is born with two and there fore we can say "humans have two legs". What you are talking about is general differences, with millions of data points that contradict you, and those differences cannot be removed from culture and environment.


It does look at the 2nd defintion on google "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race". The argument for an ethnostate is that each race holds certain traits that are genetic making them characteristics that are possessed by all members of that race, and that these are so profound different races cannot co-exist. Therefore the argument for one is racist. You cant untie this idea from racism, you can discuss whether or not its hateful; but it is by definition racist.

These are all relatively new concepts, so some mistakes are bound to happen.


One of the main reasons why we don't have a good consensus on how different the races are from one another is because a lot of scientists are very liberal and left wing, and so any kind of research into this would be deemed too racist to publicise even though science should be immune to political criticism/bias, as it is supposed to transcend idea and theory and only be concerned with establishing what is and isn't fact.
If we could identify how biologically different we are for a fact, I believe it would actually help us come to terms with our differences faster and eliminate even more racism.


Agreed, because although you can see general trends i.e. Mediterraneans, Slavs, Germans etc., everybody has a small amount of something else in them. Especially for something as mixed as the UK or even England (different counties have different heritage), it's a basically impossible figure to determine.


I agree. I think the criteria for immigrants should be learning the language, having a good skill set, working and respecting the culture of the natives. Just like a minority's culture should be respected, the natives have an equal right of respect. And of course, numbers should be limited.


Not a problem, everyone has a right to their own opinion. People who judge and shout at others for disagreeing with their beliefs usually just have nothing to back up their own and are useful idiots to their cause.

PRSOM

You're conflating ethnonationalism and an ethnostate here.

Ethnonationalism is the simple belief that an ethnic group should have an identity. An ethnostate is a state comprised of just one ethnic group and not allowing others in.

One of those is discriminatory and one of them isn't necessarily.

'Imo it is not racist or hateful to believe that ethnic groups need their own identity and their own countries in which that identity can thrive' That's ethnonationalism, not an ethnostate. An ethnic group can be a majority of it's own state and still hold minorities, while still hosting a thriving culture.

I'd agree that multiculturalism in the way some people define it does not work. I think in terms of immigration, immigrants can retain some of their customs but they must respect the culture of the native population. Trying to mesh foreign cultures into the native one is just going to piss natives off, because they will feel that their culture is being infringed upon.

I still hold that the very idea of an ethnostate is pretty discriminatory and xenophobic. To want a nation free of immigrants and other non-natives or those with non-native background presumes that there is something wrong with them.

Even when controlling for environmental factors, differences between human populations still exist. One example is the IQ gap between different races. The black-white IQ gap in the US is thought to be approx. 80% heritable (search "Rushton & Jensen 2005" for the original 60 page report, can download as a pdf):
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-totality-of-available-evidence-shows-the-race-Rushton-Jensen/6ea8cb828abfa2af89dbb9d14a875ed2c968b685
This isn't to say that whites are superior to blacks - but it's a very real difference that is mostly due to genetics.

Of course there aren't just differences between racial groups - there are differences between every group of humans. Race is just one grouping. Slightly related to the racial IQ thing, research shows that virtually all human psychological differences are moderately to substantially heritable (so from this we can assume that there will be more psychological similarities between people who are closely genetically related):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12486697?fbclid=IwAR1qaP2lUhcyqJ0Sjo3GzZfvkBvjR7nwP7kJ8Ko-ml9ff4Qfykl7HhuCHto

Fair enough, I concede my point if we are going by that definition. My view is that it is not hateful, if advocated for in the "right" way.

Yes... but is it wrong?

Are you an ethnat?

None of that controls for environmental factors because you cant, humans are just as much products of there genes as their environments. Taking blacks in america as a result, they entered the country as a slave class in numbers so much they had enough to create their own sub culture within greater American culture. To believe that has no effect on IQ while believing that its heritable is nonsensical. Again your argument is based on false premises we do not live in a equal and homogeneous world, and we are incredibly adaptable creatures. That means enviroment random chance culture etc, will change us. Therefore making any absolute statements interms of how x type of people will always be, which is a core premise for an ethno state, is pointless.


You say that so casually but the differences between groups are so much more vast than between racial groups vast that it makes no sense to distinguish on such a low resolution like race. Finally you cannot make the jump from heritable IQ to heritable psychology, that makes no sense; ones psychology is unarguably bolted to ones environment and nurture.

Also you should read your study it doesn't prove your conclusion "Nonetheless, despite some effort, thereare a limited number of confirmed linkages or gene associations for behavioraltraits.".

Yeah it isn't intrinsically hateful but it is pointless, culture is a far more a definite meaningful and pragmatic factor to focus on. Race means nothing compared to it.

Of course you can control for environmental factors. There have been studies done on identical vs fraternal twins in relation to the heritability of IQ:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study/

I don't believe that the "African-American subculture" (to paraphrase) is responsible for any IQ gaps. Perhaps to some small degree, but not to any significant extent. And of course humans are somewhat malleable, but I believe that quite a lot of our behaviour is determined by our genetics - I take the hereditarian approach to most things. And I didn't say that x groups of people will always be a certain way (however I don't think there will be any huge changes), neither am I an advocate for an ethnostate.

I didn't "make a jump" - the psychology bit was a separate thing to the IQ bit (although I said "slightly related" as I was getting at the idea that there may be more psychological similarities between people of the same race than between people of different races). And yes, our psychology is influenced by our environment - but certain things are heritable (such as personality traits or susceptibility to mental illnesses).

Twins dont prove anything. Thats like saying two apples from the same stem are size "x"(bigger) and two oranges from the same stem are size "y"(smaller), therefore all apples are bigger than all oranges.


That's not a tenable postilion we know so much more concrete science on things like gut flora, early childhood experiences, education and just general environmental factors(before you go on about each thing this is not an exhaustive list) that infer who a person will become as apposed to there genetic disposition. I mean just on a pretty basic level if what you believe is true then no/very few adopted babies or young children would feel apart of an adopted family who is a different race to them and would grow up with a radically different disposition morals and personality to there adoptive family but that doesn't happen.

So why are you trying to do damage control for one. Anyone with eyes can see an ethno state is racist but you try and argue its not then when i present the definition you instantly concede the point. Its obvious that you are trying to argue for it because people that argue for an ethno state dont care about being called racist but do care about it being hateful. Im all for discussing things if they are true but id you guys are going to complain about being censored for being alt right you cant hide when somone calls your motives.

Some personality traits may be heritable, proclivities to mental illness again can be heritable. But you know what is almost certain for most people your environment, for most people if they are taught x is wrong from an early age they will believe it. If they are taught to do y when provoked they will do it. Environment is far more prevalent in molding the meaningful parts of a persons personality.