Comment by dismalaf
1 day ago
> It is in Israel, where there is an apartheid rule
Are you thick? Israel literally has Arab politicians and political parties, and 2 million Arabs living in Israel proper.
> Ethnonationalism means you believe in one ethnicity being the only rightful cirizens of your state, superior to other ethnicities that live there.
No, you're making up your own definition. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism
While occasionally it means other ethnicities are second class citizens (if you want to use Jews as an example they were kicked out of a ton of Arab countries where they had lived for centuries) that's far from the rule.
> Every country on earth has more than one ethnicity loving there
I mean, if a single person from another ethnicity lives there than this is true I guess.
An absolute ton of countries are named after and defined by the majority ethnic group. Literally most in Asia, a bunch in Africa (and in the rest you have ethnic strife), most in Europe. Again, the places this isn't true is mainly places that were defined by colonialism. Name a country, either they're an ethnostate or a colonial remnant.
The wikipedia article supports the point I made that you claim I made up:
"The central tenet of ethnic nationalists is that "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry. Those of other ethnicities may be classified as second-class citizens."
That doesn't say "sometimes", that says "central tenet".
Considering your reading comprehension, you calling me "thick" is hilarious. Quite literally the second paragraph of your own citation, it supports my main point, and you somehow still have the confidence to say that I'm making it up. That's some misplaced confidence.
The apartheid in Israel is well documented, even by Israeli sources, I'll take a page out of your book and refer to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid
If you would apply some elementary logic to the situation in Israel, you would be able to understand the apartheid and racism towards arabs. Israel quite literally disenfranchised nearly a million native Palestinian arabs in 1948, and are neither interested in goving them their own state, nor absorbing them into the state of Israel. Why not give them Israeli citizenship if they want to, and a right to return, as the U.N. has required them to do? Because they're the wrong ethnicity. Any ethnic jew (by Israels definition) is given automatic "birthright citizenship", even if they have no connection to the land, but arabs that were born in the territory are not let in. That's ethnonationalism right there (that's part of the apartheid).
The rest of your post is a weird starwman handwave? (there's only single persons of the non-plurality ethnicity living anywhere?), and arguing about names, which is quite literally too dumb to even engage with.
One final point: you seem to think I believe that nation states are a rare phenomenon, maybe because you're conflating the concept of nation states in general with the ideology of ethnonationalism. The most common form of nationalism is civic or cultural nationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism), which does not place one ethnicity above another. It's not ideal either, but it's considerably more moderate.
You're clearly out of your depth and arguing in bad faith, and I think you should calm down before you reply again. Maybe the discussion will be more civil then.
> The central tenet of ethnic nationalists is that nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry.
This is one sentence. The "central tenet" applies to what's written in this sentence.
> Those of other ethnicities may be classified as second-class citizens.
"May be"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/may
Try reading.
Did you see that "common ethnic ancestry" is part of what ethnonationalists define a nation through? As part of their central tenet? Do you still claim that I was making that up about ethnonationalism defining nationhood through ethnicity and looking down on other ethnicities?
And you know what, let me concede the "may". Does that somehow make it less extreme? Not really. "Ethnonationalists look down on other ethnicities, and as a consequence _sometimes_ codify their status as subhuman into law, but not always, if they don't have the political power to enforce it." shouldn't really sell anyone on how _moderate_ they are. That just means ethnonationalism has degrees and variation in how it expresses itself in practice, because everything does. The fact that there isn't always an explicit, formal legally codified class of out-group people doesn't mean that the ideology doesn't always define a national ethnos that is superior to others. Because that is quite literally what ethnonationalists do, it's what Hitler did, it's what Netanyahu does, and it's what DHH does.
You know it's funny, because you were clearly unaware of what ethninationalism meant, and had to look it up on wikipedia, because you quote it exactly in your previous reply. So there is a possibility that you're not trolling, that you're just too embarassed to admit that you're wrong. Let me help you with that.
In that same wikipedia article that you cited but did not read, the only explicit examples given are fascism in Europe (including nazis), and white nationalism in the US. It also details the racist nature of ethnonationalism, which is exactly what I've been saying. The whole article supports my argument and undermines yours. Ethnonationalism is an extreme ideology, exemplified by nazis and the KKK, says _your main source_.
You're clearly emotionally worked up, as you keep snarking and throwing insults at me. I have also crossed some lines I don't usually cross, but I feel I can allow myself that once the person on the other side starts hurling random insults. I suggest you log off for a while, or maybe read through that entire article you linked.
3 replies →