Good point, thank you, and amended.
Yep, it’s a death cult, where anything that deviates become the target for hatred.
I think the issue was that this was all to argue with someone who mentioned the “benefits of being an ethnostate”. If you ask people who think say* that such benefits exist, they’ll be more likely to point to Norway than to the US. They are not talking about the benefits of a diverse state with oppression.
They want to claim that there is more “social cohesion” (or something) when the population is more homogenous. So they:
- use the existence of racism to promote segregation; and
- attribute the success of progressive countries to homogeneity rather than socialism
So when we say ethnostates don’t exist, we are talking about the fact that there is always diversity, even in the least diverse countries. White supremacists in the US pretend the UK is ethnically homogenous as if a Scottish person wouldn’t stab you in the throat with a thistle for calling them English.
In the end, of course, they will equivocate between low-diversity and high-diversity-with-oppression, flipping the meaning as it suits them.
* Corrected “think” to “say” because I don’t take them at their word that they really think this. White supremacists should never be assumed to be doing anything in good faith.
Well absolutely, I mean the entire range of human genetic difference can be found in any group of one hundred individuals, right?
But it’s the perceived benefits, not their actual existence- which effect the system.
The fact that ethnostates can’t possibly exist doesn’t stop people from trying to make them happen. And as you say, and I certainly agree, making this point to a fascist is useless.
But I do think it’s useful to claim that the US project was in part an attempt to create an ethnostate, at least as another line of critique against the supposedly enlightened founding.
So founding ideology: white supremacy
Political structure to secure white supremacy: (proto) fascism
Economic structure: slavery capitalism
Goal: a white ethnostate.
If you find me tiresome, you are certainly under no obligation to engage me. Lots of people find me tiresome and duly ignore me, so… please feel free. I’m trying to engage you honestly and with respect.
Yet they are still built by people and through people. Systems have no life outside of people, who are the agents of systems. We can certainly talk of how these systems shape our behavior and in what way they do so, but they are most certainly meaningless outside of people.
My arguement is that even when it’s touted as such (which, although the founders certainly made a white supremacist constitution and institutions), they were not making an ethno-state, because they included people of color in their documents - by denying them full humanity. The nazis worked towards an ethno-state and failed. They were systematically trying to eliminate people not deemed “pure” enough. Big difference there in intent.
Was the goal ever the elimination of blacks from the system? If not, then the goal was not an enthno-state, merely a segregated one with the class system based on race instead of other criteria.
That sounds interesting. I just finished reading SPQR by Mary Beard, which concentrates on the Roman Empire, but makes the same point that Rome’s willingness to grant citizenship to people of all cultures and ethnicities was a huge advantage when it came to maintaining a stable empire for centuries.
I’ll have to pick that up at some point. She’s been on my radar for a while now and it seems like she’d be a great historian to fill in some of my gaps in ancient history knowledge.
No quite the opposite it’s my opinion that you have one the strongest voices on this board- maybe I was being touchy but it felt a bit over the top to me?
The Afrikaners certainly wanted black Africans as far from them as possible, and built a white only government to do that. They didn’t need to state “our desire is create a white only ethnostate, because it is fairly obvious that this is in fact what they were doing. The reason I claim apartheid is a step on the path to an ethnostate is that apartheid can not be maintained indefinitely. So, whether they wanted as a stated goal is an ethnostate, eventually the instability of apartheid gives way to a choice- final solution, or the end of the presiding regime.
Inclusion of people of color in their documents as a means to deny their humanity is necessary for supremacy to begin with. That’s not exculpatory towards their motivations, it’s part of the process. Without this fundamental dehumanization, the white supremacist project never gets off the ground.
this.
and that.
for the benefits of themselves and their friends really. ( tho some like franklin were more idealistic, and he realized he was wrong about slavery, wanted to introduce steps towards abolishment before he died. )
basically, there was a coalition of slave holders with non slave holders - they all needed to agree to break with england - so they agreed to ignore fights over slavery.
my point is that, even at the time, there were differences amongst the founders on slavery.
moreover, american history may be defined by it’s relationship to slavery - but blacks weren’t the only group whom we would consider non-white today.
people from east asia and china were brought to fill labor shortages building the railroads, doing mining, etc. and there are vibrant chinese-american communities in many cities. ( if it hadn’t been for japanese internment the pacific states would pretty different today. )
hispanics were already here and remain as much the heart of america as non-hispanics.
hawaiians, filipinos, puerto ricans. they are all a part of america. the list goes on.
and what’s more - the lines in these sorts of lists change. race and culture are moments in time, not fixed qualities. once persians were considered legally white, but people today wouldn’t do so. the reverse for people from ireland.
america has never been an ethnostate, and it would be rewriting history to try to pretend that was ever a goal.