Civic vs. ethnic nationalism

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The ever loveable @Rival made a post recently that might take a few people by surprise:

How else would one define a Pole? Objectively? Not a fan of Civic Nationalism.

If you want to debate her on the specifics of this post, please wander over to the appropriate thread.

Her reaction doesn't surprise me; I know her political views on some things but not on this subject. And I've not seen her post them openly before. So, Rival. I'd like to know why you don't like civic nationalism.

To touch on the subject more broadly: What are the differences between civic & ethnic nationalisms; what are their respective strengths & pitfalls; which do you prefer and why?

I'm more of a civic nationalism man, myself. Here's a summary of what civic nationalism is from Wikipedia:

"Civic nationalism is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom,tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[1]Ernest Renan[2] and John Stuart Mill[3] are often thought to be early civic nationalists. Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[4] and that democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly"

Naturally, I'd much prefer a government founded on this principle than one founded on cultural or ethnic nationalism.

To me, ethnic nationalism is blinkered because it refuses to recognise that cultures mingle and trade ideas & concepts. It places or removes a person's value simply because of who their parents are and were they were born. It also tends to place limits without reason on who can claim nationality; in that ethnic nationalist politics all-too-often become conflated with a country's dominant religion.

 

[Rival]

First, that's the first time I've seen that definition of Civic Nationalism but as it comes from Mill et al. I'll accept it. My definition (as I knew it) was that Civic Nationalism is Nationalism, but based on the idea that if you are born in a country where none of your ancestors lived, or merely have a passport for that country, that makes you, say Spanish. I disagree that you can be Spanish based on citizenship alone. I believe that to be Spanish one has to have Spanish ancestors, Spanish blood, etc.

For instance, I agree with this:

"Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[4] and that democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly"

I don't see ethnic nationalism as better, in a sense, but more logical. If you could become Spanish by merely living in Spain then what's the point of there even being a 'Spain'? Every country would end up being the same and the respective cultures would erode and all melt in with every other culture. Ergo, there would be no different cultures. I disagree that this is a good thing. I like tradition, conservatism and such. I believe we should cherish our heritage and our ancestors.

I certainly don't judge folk on who their parents are.

I don't actually have much to say on this tbh :\

 

[Iti oj]

First, that's the first time I've seen that definition of Civic Nationalism but as it comes from Mill et al. I'll accept it. My definition (as I knew it) was that Civic Nationalism is Nationalism, but based on the idea that if you are born in a country where none of your ancestors lived, or merely have a passport for that country, that makes you, say Spanish. I disagree that you can be Spanish based on citizenship alone. I believe that to be Spanish one has to have Spanish ancestors, Spanish blood, etc.

For instance, I agree with this:

"Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[4] and that democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly"

I don't see ethnic nationalism as better, in a sense, but more logical. If you could become Spanish by merely living in Spain then what's the point of there even being a 'Spain'? Every country would end up being the same and the respective cultures would erode and all melt in with every other culture. Ergo, there would be no different cultures. I disagree that this is a good thing. I like tradition, conservatism and such. I believe we should cherish our heritage and our ancestors.

I certainly don't judge folk on who their parents are.

I don't actually have much to say on this tbh :\

I think "Spanish" is an artificial construct.

 

[metis]

All boundaries and ethnicities are strictly artificial constructs out of our own makings. For example, "Poland" didn't exist throughout most of world history, therefore "Polish" people didn't exist either.

A good friend of mine, who mostly identifies as being "Polish", is from an area that was over the last century sometimes "Poland" and sometimes "Germany", and he can speak both languages well.

 

[Rival]

That's like saying for the past God knows how long that Jewish people didn't exist because there was no such thing as Israel...

Polish people make up Poland.
Poland doesn't make Polish people.

 

[metis]

That's like saying for the past God knows how long that Jewish people didn't exist because there was no such thing as Israel...

Polish people make up Poland.
Poland doesn't make Polish people.

There was a time when us "Jews" simply didn't exist-- actually the vast majority of the time in human history. Secondly, I don't attribute anything to what God may or may not know.

And "Poland" and "Polish" people are strictly artificial creations, as I posted last.

 

[Rival]

And "Poland" and "Polish" people are strictly artificial creations, as I posted last.

Our opinions strongly differ, then

 

[Rival]

And btw when I mentioned Jews I meant before the creation of the modern state of Israel. But that's probably a whole other argument in itself.

 

[metis]

Our opinions strongly differ, then

No problem, but then I tend to think you're "seeing" only what you want to see. So, let me ask you these questions:

1.When "Poland" didn't exist, which is most of the time in human history, was there still a "Poland", iyo?

2.When "Poland" didn't exist, which is most of the time in human history, how could "Polish people" exist?

3.If you take a gander by satellite of Planet Earth, do you see boundaries (real lines) for "Poland" along with the name "Poland"?

4.If we were to see a picture of 100 naked people from all over the world, do you think you could pick out the one who's "Polish"?

Anyhow, my questions are pretty much rhetorical to me, so I'll probably just be moving on.

 

[metis]

And btw when I mentioned Jews I meant before the creation of the modern state of Israel. But that's probably a whole other argument in itself.

Not really.

BTW, I spent two weeks in Poland in 1991 on a study of the Holocaust, and we spent much of that time with both political and Catholic officials. It was a rough year since it was only one year after the Communists were out of power, and the shift to democracy and capitalism was very painful. The produce that most of us wouldn't hesitate to throw in the garbage had lines of people trying to buy. One American dollar could purchase 20 loaves of bread, their currency was so devalued.

 

[Iti oj]

That's like saying for the past God knows how long that Jewish people didn't exist because there was no such thing as Israel...

Polish people make up Poland.
Poland doesn't make Polish people.

Not really if there was no poland they would be something else

No problem, but then I tend to think you're "seeing" only what you want to see. So, let me ask you these questions:

1.When "Poland" didn't exist, which is most of the time in human history, was there still a "Poland", iyo?

2.When "Poland" didn't exist, which is most of the time in human history, how could "Polish people" exist?

3.If you take a gander by satellite of Planet Earth, do you see boundaries (real lines) for "Poland" along with the name "Poland"?

4.If we were to see a picture of 100 naked people from all over the world, do you think you could pick out the one who's "Polish"?

Anyhow, my questions are pretty much rhetorical to me, so I'll probably just be moving on.

1-3 no number 4 yes! Wink wink

 

[Iti oj]

I'm waiting for the photos,

 

[Rival]

No problem, but then I tend to think you're "seeing" only what you want to see. So, let me ask you these questions:

1.When "Poland" didn't exist, which is most of the time in human history, was there still a "Poland", iyo?

No, but that does not mean there were no Polish people.

2.When "Poland" didn't exist, which is most of the time in human history, how could "Polish people" exist?

Because they are a distinct ethnicity of people. If English people all left England to become nomads without a country, there would still be English people, just no "England."

3.If you take a gander by satellite of Planet Earth, do you see boundaries (real lines) for "Poland" along with the name "Poland"?

Obviously not.

4.If we were to see a picture of 100 naked people from all over the world, do you think you could pick out the one who's "Polish"?

Anyhow, my questions are pretty much rhetorical to me, so I'll probably just be moving on.

Depends. Well trained anthropologists might. First, Poles are White, so in a line-up of Poles, Chinese and Egyptians it would be super easy.

Even though you didn't really want them answered.

 

[Rival]

We are never going to agree on this because you guys are bent on "there is no such thing as race or ethnicity" so we can't even debate right because we can't even agree on a premise. So I'm going to leave this here, because neither of us will change our mind. I think ethnicity exists, you guys don't. I'm certainly not arguing over that because I've done it one too many times and never gotten anywhere.

 

[metis]

No, but that does not mean there were no Polish people.

Illogical. No one is going to have used the term "Polish" if there had been no "Poland". Both words are relatively recent constructs.

Because they are a distinct ethnicity of people. If English people all left England to become nomads without a country, there would still be English people, just no "England."

That is irrelevant because we only say someone is "English" because of our artificial constructs of both "England" and "English", neither of which existed thousands of years ago, for example. They're simply inventions made by us humans.

Depends. Well trained anthropologists might. First, Poles are White, so in a line-up of Poles, Chinese and Egyptians it would be super easy.

I am an anthropologist who taught the subject for roughly 30 years, and the above is just terribly wrong. It is not that people are somehow all the same because obviously they're not, but I guarantee you that it cannot be done unless one uses genome testing, but even that has its limitations. For a quick example, my wife was born and raised in Sicily, but most people mistake her for Scottish or Irish because of her light complexion and red hair.

 

[LuisDantas]

Any form of nationalism is ultimately arbitrary.

And it is hardly ever constructive to attempt to reinforce nationalism.

 

[metis]

We are never going to agree on this because you guys are bent on "there is no such thing as race or ethnicity" so we can't even debate right because we can't even agree on a premise. So I'm going to leave this here, because neither of us will change our mind. I think ethnicity exists, you guys don't. I'm certainly not arguing over that because I've done it one too many times and never gotten anywhere.

Ethnicity exists only because we say it exists and have defined it.

 

[Rival]

@metis, you seem to think that I mean "Polish" the word. I mean the DNA and genes and so on that makes up a Polish person. I'm not saying they have "POLISH" written in their blood. Of coruse the names are made up, but biology is not.

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand.

 

[Rival]

Ethnicity exists only because we say it exists and have defined it.

No, it doesn't. This is a Liberal theory.

 

[metis]

@metis, you seem to think that I mean "Polish" the word. I mean the DNA and genes and so on that makes up a Polish person. I'm not saying they have "POLISH" written in their blood. Of coruse the names are made up, but biology is not.

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand.

There is no such thing as "Polish blood", nor "Polish d.n.a." in terms of anything physical that can be observed or measured in any way.