There is a Radical Left Party Front but no Right-wing equivalent

Discussion in 'Help and Rules' started by Euskadi Herria, Mar 3, 2019.

  1. Bassarion Korax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Location:
    My heart is Out West, but I'm Back East.
    Ok, so on this forum, we cannot discuss the concept of closed borders, then?

    Why would advocating for a homeland for a given ethnic group, say, Kurds and Zazaks have to mean advocating ethnic cleansing or racism? Someone might be advocating for the right of Kurds to break off from Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria to form their own state that is the political manifestation of the will of the Kurdish people. Same thing for Ossetia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, or even... dare I say, the Hazars and the Rohingyas, both of whom I think a rather cogent case can be made for the need for a homeland for them.

    If I’m not mistaken, in order for something to be “racist”, it has to specifically argue for racial superiority, and as far as I’m aware, that’s not a part of any nationalist platform. Nationalists advocate for the right of all peoples to pursue their own self determination in their own countries, should they so choose.
     
    Zagan likes this.
  2. Bassarion Korax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Location:
    My heart is Out West, but I'm Back East.
    I guess if Euskadi Herria was just banned for what he said, which... was pretty mild, I’ll drop it. I’m very vested in my timeline and don’t want to get banned. This... this is rather disappointing, though. I’m not really even a nationalist myself, more of a paleo-conservative, but I would like to see an honest debate between respectable proponents of either side here. Oh well. It is Ian’s sandbox, I suppose.
     
    Zagan likes this.
  3. joea64 Unabashed Edwardian Era fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Location:
    A few miles south of Henry House Hill
    The fundamental problem is that, in today's world, nationalism, which is what I believe you're advocating for, tends all too often, and all too easily, to fall over into ethnonationalism, particularly when one advances the proposition "X for the X people", which seems - no matter the intention of the person saying it - to exclude anyone residing in that territory who's not a member of the X group.
     
  4. Bassarion Korax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Location:
    My heart is Out West, but I'm Back East.
    Let’s just drop it.
     
  5. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    Once you start talking ethno-nationalism you are, by virtual definition talking about, at best, legalized discrimination if not ethnic cleansing. If you prefer use bigotry rather than racist. PoTAto/PotAHto resut is the same.

    How, to use one of your examples, does France become "for the French" without eliminating the large ethnic minority? Same goes for "Turkey for the Turks" to use another of your examples since at least 12% of Turkey's population are Kurdish. Pretty much the same goes for every single example you brought up, even places in the Caucasus region. Chechenya is 95% Chechen, however that still mean that well over 50,000 non Chechens are going to either be made second class citizens or be displaced (ethnically cleansed).

    As soon as you go exclusionary based on some perceived ethnic or nationalist basis you are going to be incredibly hard pressed to avoid one of the Eight Ways to Crash Land.
     
  6. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    Because, by definition, if you're advocating for a certain area to become a homeland for a certain ethnic group, you are, implicitly, arguing for, at best, kicking out all the non-that ethnic group people who currently live there
     
    Leon Trotsky likes this.
  7. Bassarion Korax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Location:
    My heart is Out West, but I'm Back East.
    So... do all of the Slovaks that still live on the Czech side of the border live as second class citizens? Do the Basques in Spain? What about the Miao, Zhuang, or Dong in China?

    Nationalism doesn’t have to mean that people will live as second class citizens. It means that a country is realized as the political manifestation of the will of a people, and whoever else wants to come along for the ride so long as they are a good fit with the group that’s at the wheel. In China, this means th Han Chinese are driving, and a bunch of other peoples are ok sitting in the passenger seat. Other groups (the Uyghurs) aren’t, and the Han Chinese government is violently suppressing them. The nationalists I know consider what is being done to the Uyghurs to be a travesty. These people clearly want nothing but to pursue their own self-determination, and they are not only being denied this, but bullied into a state of submission by a more numerous and more powerful group. This is wrong. However, other ethnic groups in China are comfortable letting the Han take charge, and have been for quite awhile. As far as I am aware, and I’ve been all over China, these people don’t live as second-class citizens next to the Han.

    What is being done to the Hazaras and the Rohingya is also a travesty. Neither of these peoples even tried to secede, they are merely being persecuted by legitimate racists. They definitely need a place of their own, a place away from people that would harm them, where they can exist and where their unique identities can be cultivated...

    Anyways, I said I was going to drop it. That’s the last I’m going to speak on the matter.
     
    Zagan likes this.
  8. New Hampshire Jimmy Dore Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2019
    Location:
    Europe
    Called it
     
  9. Zagan Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2015
    Location:
    Romania
    Minority rights are a thing, you know. In fact, it's more common, at least in Europe, to have properly enforced minority rights than second class citizens and ethnic cleansing in the still numerous National States.

    Romania is a good such example of a "National State" (which is even enshrined in its constitution) where the ethnic minorities and their languages are, nonetheless, actively and successfully protected by the state.

    So, you can certainly have the best of both ways: both a National State and equal rights and protection for everybody just like in a Civic State.

    You cannot dismiss a situation which is present and successful in about half of Europe and equate it with oppression and ethnic cleansing. We can be civilized people and still keep our National States.
     
    TastySpam and Bassarion Korax like this.