Racism is an essential part of patriotism in most of the world. Without it, many smaller nations like Scotland or the Philippines wouldn't exist.
Change my mind.
Perhaps
It's just an interesting notion that Scotland or the Philippines wouldn't exist if it wasn't for racism and I wanted to see if there was any truth in it
deleted
· 5 years ago
It's an admittedly clickbaity opening line. "Ethnolinguistic nationalism" isn't as catchy as racism, but they have a lot of overlap.
.
I used Scotland as an example, because they're a nation, not a country. Scotland exists as a large group of people whose collective cultural identity separates them from other people, while still being subject to the govt of the UK.
Were it not for Scotland's insistence on use of a different language/dialect, different food, different dress, poetry, song, dance, history, etc., they would have been absorbed into England long ago. The true story of Braveheart is that a Union was forged with England instead of Scotland being taken over. They fought to not have to speak English and live like the Anglo-Saxons, and settled on a trade union, because it would mean not losing their culture.
Scotland's historical identity is very NOT English.
My stance is not "Racism is good".
It's that ethnolinguistic nationalism (often fueled directly by racism) is a neutral tool that benefits whoever uses it. My ideology is that ethnolinguistic nationalism is a positive tool in the hands of the oppressed, and a negative tool in the hands of oppressors.
Change my mind.
Could you elaborate?
It's just an interesting notion that Scotland or the Philippines wouldn't exist if it wasn't for racism and I wanted to see if there was any truth in it
.
I used Scotland as an example, because they're a nation, not a country. Scotland exists as a large group of people whose collective cultural identity separates them from other people, while still being subject to the govt of the UK.
Were it not for Scotland's insistence on use of a different language/dialect, different food, different dress, poetry, song, dance, history, etc., they would have been absorbed into England long ago. The true story of Braveheart is that a Union was forged with England instead of Scotland being taken over. They fought to not have to speak English and live like the Anglo-Saxons, and settled on a trade union, because it would mean not losing their culture.
Scotland's historical identity is very NOT English.
Rizal took the Spanish custom of calling the native Filipinos "Indios" and turned it into "Indios Bravos", bravo being Spanish for brave/fierce/wild.
Filipino revolutionaries banded together against the Spanish, easily identifiable by their light skin and Spanish language. They created a national identity where there was none, and that identity was one of NOT being Spanish.
It's that ethnolinguistic nationalism (often fueled directly by racism) is a neutral tool that benefits whoever uses it. My ideology is that ethnolinguistic nationalism is a positive tool in the hands of the oppressed, and a negative tool in the hands of oppressors.
I thought this needed explication, and I'm glad you did it