For decades, America has embraced a civic nationalism over a European-style ethnic nationalism. This is that certain notions of freedom and responsibility, not blood and soil, were the real ties that bind.
A sense of community can transcend religion and race, and this is what we should strive for.
> For decades, America has embraced a civic nationalism over a European-style ethnic nationalism
Doesn't this fly in the face of the contemporary liberal/progressive critiques of society? It seems to me that race has had a central role in both the founding (genocide of native americans), expansion (slavery), and liberalization (civil rights era) of the United States.
>This is that certain notions of freedom and responsibility, not blood and soil, were the real ties that bind...A sense of community can transcend religion and race, and this is what we should strive for.
I hope to God that you are right, I really, really do - but when I look at history in terms civilizations, eras, etc., not in years or a couple of decades, I have little hope that ideas about "freedom" or "responsibility" are capable of sustaining a nation. It seems to me that religion can, or something transcendental, and I say this as an ardent atheist.
"Decades" is a short amount of time and "embraced" obviously varies wildly. When the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed it was promised that "the ethnic makeup will not be upset". The American people never voted to be demographically displaced. (Why would they?)
>A sense of community can transcend religion and race
It can, but you're swimming against nature. Do you think the Japanese people would be happier if Japan was minority Japanese?
> Do you think the Japanese people would be happier if Japan was minority Japanese?
The more interesting question is why are the Japanese so miserable, 53 other countries rank over Japan despite features that some say should promote happiness. You might even say that the hypothesis that social cohesion must be upheld by deterring ethnic influences in the pursuit of happier communities can't find a worse example in Japan.
These are all modern economies, most of which operate immigration-friendly regimes. Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Finland are all signed up to freedom of movement, which doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or place of birth, provided you are a citizen in the EEA or Switzerland, or if you are married to such a citizen.
Anyway, the point is not that diversity cultivates happiness (no simple answer to that), the point is that some people believe in keeping communities homogeneous and argue that this promotes happiness. That happiness boost is nowhere to be seen when looking at real world examples.
They aren't the only modern economies. Demographics plays a role.
>most of which operate immigration-friendly regimes
Recent policy and current demographics are two different things. These are still homogenous countries for the most part, especially Iceland which is exceedingly safe. Where demographics have shifted drastically away from the native population, the quality of life has reduced. (Look at Malmo, for example.)
>That happiness boost is nowhere to be seen when looking at real world examples.
I'm not advancing the claim that high levels of diversity bring about happiness, I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because they get to be homogeneous in composition. It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous communities.
>It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous communities.
There can definitely be miserable people who are looking for a scapegoat. It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because it's so taboo.
On the other hand there are people like me: anonymous, have traveled the world, lived in rural areas and cities, have a masters from a top 10, have a good job, etc. who look at the data and go: "Oh, the data is indicating that this recent configuration of humans isn't as good as it could be." You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm--were they all miserable?
Portraying people who are against diversity as ignorant or miserable doesn't disprove the fact that if you take a homogenous, high-performing population and flood it with diverse, lower-IQ, culturally-incomptable, more violent, less-productive people the nation will become worse.
Simple question: would Europe be better or worse today if there were only Europeans in it?
> It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because it's so taboo.
It's not taboo though is it. People go on and on about immigration and there are entire media outfits that are devoted to casting foreigners as threats while promoting the idea that 'these people are not as good natives, have lower IQ, are more violent and less productive', which is typically based on outright lies and prejudice. Beliefs about immigrants are entirely warped to cater to a smaller subset of the population which has a hard time dealing with change while they grip with tremendous entitlement to mythical constructions of the past.
> You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm
A very curious statement. Europe's history is one characterised by migration and constant changes in demographics. There have always been groups of people at odds with one another because they were different enough to be seen as a threat. Every generation has struggled accepting new groups of people with both good and bad results.
Very much so. Anyone could be fired for writing what I've written. Diversity is the new state religion.
Trump voters knew what they were voting for, even if it was dressed up as "economic anxiety" (although low-skilled immigrant workers devaluing labor right before automation is the last thing we need).
>which is typically based on outright lies
Absolutely not. Pick any metric for latinos in the US and compare them to whites. Fun fact, when you read "immigrants commit less crime than natives" it's due to existing blacks and latinos. They commit more crimes than whites and asians.
>which has a hard time dealing with change
Does it even register with you that change and immigration can be bad? It's not some force of nature. Again, we literally never voted for our immigration policy to change and it was promised that the ethnic makeup would not be upset in 1965.
>Every generation has struggled accepting new groups of people with both good and bad results.
I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Europe would be better in every meaningful way if there were only Europeans in it. How many thousands of British girls are you fine with being raped in the UK from grooming gangs? How much is enough? Why should a tiny minority in the world (whites) subsidize their own displacement?
> It can, but you're swimming against nature. Do you think the Japanese people would be happier if Japan was minority Japanese?
Japan - and many (most?) other countries - don't share the contingencies of America's founding. If I emigrate to Finland do I become, and am I seen by Fins as, Finnish? Not really. But a Fin moving to the U.S. can become an American and perceived by the rest of us as American.
Civilization is rife with examples of us overcoming our natural tendencies. Why should this be any different?
The new state religion is diversity and to question it makes one a heretic. Why can't it be discussed dispassionately the same way we discuss climate change? Maybe we shouldn't subsidize policies that have negative effects for citizens?
A sense of community can transcend religion and race, and this is what we should strive for.