The word nation means race its the original Latin meaning of the word so putting "civic" or "multiculturalism" in front of it makes no sense what so ever 🤦♂️😂 Nations are people not dirt
One might claim the US has succeeded because the nations or immigrant groups have not preserved their cultures so much, but have largely taken on American culture. The descendants may retain tendencies to favor the food or drink of the parent nation, but then again, usually that food or drink is also enjoyed by other Americans. As for a perceived need for a given group to preserve the culture of Italy, Germany, Ireland, or whatever, one might as easily say, "We still have Italy, Germany, Ireland for that, haven't we?" Even if we didn't, a future person is going to have some culture or other, and the idea that it really needs to be this culture rather than that one or the idea that it is important that the people who occupy such-and-such part of the globe favor sauerkraut or curry dishes rather than hamburgers or goulash seems very odd to me. If they choose freely, I just don't see a moral issue there. It seems very close to observing that a certain region or area is populated almost entirely by some racial or ethnic minority and insisting the group must maintain its identity as distinct in sharing this property, rather than disappearing into the melting pot as a result of intermarrying with the majority group, as when a group is absorbed into mainstream American culture down through the generations. There is something disturbing about claiming it is important for these future persons to belong to one culture or race, rather than another as though there were an obvious moral difference which dictates that it is somehow bad for the local population to be more homogeneous one way rather than homogeneous the other way.
Thanks for your comment. The US is arguably further along the direction of civic nationalism than most countries. The position that you are speaking about seems to be more like cultural cosmopolitanism, that we will cover soon!
America is no longer going towards a route of European immigrants, we switched to hispanic, african, and indian immigrants, they tend to stick with their own culture and avoid assimilating.
@@janoycresva9765 I am an Indian and some of my relatives are citizens of USA. Indians in USA are integrating in USA's culture so much that they are developing an USA version of Indian culture which is very different from actual Indian culture.
Your use of the term “nation” here is confusing. You imply that “civic nationalism” allows for multiple “nations” in one country, under one government. But if “civic nationalism” means that citizens have duties to the nation, which nation do they have duties toward?
It sounds like you are interpreting the “nationalism” in “civic nationalism” as simply that citizens will belong to different cultural or ethnic ‘national’ collective identity groups, like different religious sects or tribes. But this does not seem right to define “civic nationalism”.
For the first comment, I encourage you to watch my video on the difference between a country and a nation (th-cam.com/video/IxXC_iCFYSs/w-d-xo.html). While they are often used interchangeably in common parlance, they have specific meanings in political philosophy. Under civic nationalism you have some duties to the nations that you are a part of (to your culture etc.), but you also have duties to the country as a whole (civic duties of upholding political representation and civil rights). To may my definition clearer, let's compare it to the other positions. The communitarian claims that only one nation can exist in a state, that all states should be nation states and expel anyone that is not of that nation. The civic nationalist claims that multiple nations can exist in the same state, but people still have some rights and responsibilities towards their nation. The cultural cosmopolitan claims that we have no responsibilities or rights based on our particular nation, and our only allegiance is to promoting liberal democracy. The Civic nationalist does not just say that people do have different nations, it says that they are allowed to have different nations within one state that they have ownership of. The Communitarian says there can only be one nation per state. The cosmopolitan says people do not have any special rights or responsibilities to their nation.
There are a lot of individual questions of nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, Irish nationalism, Israeli nationalism, Palestinian nationalism. I did not cover specific arguments for certain groups in this series.
The United States is an example of a capitalist empire, the worst kind - built on settler colonialism, genocide and slavery. No wonder it's a fervent supporter of other genocides, as we speak.
The word nation means race its the original Latin meaning of the word so putting "civic" or "multiculturalism" in front of it makes no sense what so ever 🤦♂️😂 Nations are people not dirt
The modern use of the word "nation" can refer to people bound by a common culture or a common ethnic lineage. Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "nation (or national identity) which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties." The people who are fighting for Christian Nationalism share a common belief, not a common race. Civic nationalism is about those beliefs being about a pluralistic government. Why do you think that race is any more real than culture? th-cam.com/video/ZMcfZEvqLYY/w-d-xo.html
@@CarneadesOfCyrene The movement of "Christian Nationalism" itself is preposterous. The identity for being a Christian is very vague. Anyone can become a Christian as long as accepts Jesus or whatever. The point is that the concept of race is based on a biological reality. In this sense, ethnic nationalism is more valid rather than civic nationalism because it emphasizes the innate and tangible concept of sharing a common blood and common culture for that expression of that blood. Civic nationalism, similar to that of Christian Nationalism, is based on a vague idea of citizenship and legal paperwork, which I'd argue a social construct that doesn't hold any merit to the tangible reality of blood.
Very, VERY loose use of the word 'force'... I would not force someone to hold up British values BUT, I would mildly shame them into doing so, if needed. It's what's happening in the UK atm, tho it's my values regarding this issue that people are attempting to shame. I'm a majority on this one and still my countries culture has been exceedingly tolerant of this abuse, it won't last much longer and we will flood them in rivers of shame when the time comes. No violence or "force" shall be needed. 😉
It is absurd to call Ukrainian nationalism civic. Nationalism in Ukraine is so extreme it borders on Nazism, proclaiming Nazi collaborators like Stephan Bandera as national heroes, banning languages and killing "others". Creating mythologies that the so called Holodomor was attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation, when hunger spread throughout rural Soviet Union, as a result of the brutal policies of the government, so it definitely was not an intentional attempt to "destroy the Ukrainian nation". But that is just one example of the brutal propaganda that CIA-linked Canadian and US foundations, filled with the relatives of Ukrainian Nazis have spread throughout Ukraine and of course have managed with the HATRED only in the western part. Stalin's policies of Ukrainization are key element of government's attempts to construct a nation, at that time Ukrainian schools where built, teaching Ukrainian history and culture.
Please continue like this works. You're clearly explains everything.
Thanks! And thanks for watching.
The word nation means race its the original Latin meaning of the word so putting "civic" or "multiculturalism" in front of it makes no sense what so ever 🤦♂️😂
Nations are people not dirt
One might claim the US has succeeded because the nations or immigrant groups have not preserved their cultures so much, but have largely taken on American culture. The descendants may retain tendencies to favor the food or drink of the parent nation, but then again, usually that food or drink is also enjoyed by other Americans. As for a perceived need for a given group to preserve the culture of Italy, Germany, Ireland, or whatever, one might as easily say, "We still have Italy, Germany, Ireland for that, haven't we?" Even if we didn't, a future person is going to have some culture or other, and the idea that it really needs to be this culture rather than that one or the idea that it is important that the people who occupy such-and-such part of the globe favor sauerkraut or curry dishes rather than hamburgers or goulash seems very odd to me. If they choose freely, I just don't see a moral issue there. It seems very close to observing that a certain region or area is populated almost entirely by some racial or ethnic minority and insisting the group must maintain its identity as distinct in sharing this property, rather than disappearing into the melting pot as a result of intermarrying with the majority group, as when a group is absorbed into mainstream American culture down through the generations. There is something disturbing about claiming it is important for these future persons to belong to one culture or race, rather than another as though there were an obvious moral difference which dictates that it is somehow bad for the local population to be more homogeneous one way rather than homogeneous the other way.
Thanks for your comment. The US is arguably further along the direction of civic nationalism than most countries. The position that you are speaking about seems to be more like cultural cosmopolitanism, that we will cover soon!
America is no longer going towards a route of European immigrants, we switched to hispanic, african, and indian immigrants, they tend to stick with their own culture and avoid assimilating.
@@janoycresva9765 I am an Indian and some of my relatives are citizens of USA. Indians in USA are integrating in USA's culture so much that they are developing an USA version of Indian culture which is very different from actual Indian culture.
Your use of the term “nation” here is confusing. You imply that “civic nationalism” allows for multiple “nations” in one country, under one government. But if “civic nationalism” means that citizens have duties to the nation, which nation do they have duties toward?
It sounds like you are interpreting the “nationalism” in “civic nationalism” as simply that citizens will belong to different cultural or ethnic ‘national’ collective identity groups, like different religious sects or tribes. But this does not seem right to define “civic nationalism”.
For the first comment, I encourage you to watch my video on the difference between a country and a nation (th-cam.com/video/IxXC_iCFYSs/w-d-xo.html). While they are often used interchangeably in common parlance, they have specific meanings in political philosophy. Under civic nationalism you have some duties to the nations that you are a part of (to your culture etc.), but you also have duties to the country as a whole (civic duties of upholding political representation and civil rights).
To may my definition clearer, let's compare it to the other positions. The communitarian claims that only one nation can exist in a state, that all states should be nation states and expel anyone that is not of that nation. The civic nationalist claims that multiple nations can exist in the same state, but people still have some rights and responsibilities towards their nation. The cultural cosmopolitan claims that we have no responsibilities or rights based on our particular nation, and our only allegiance is to promoting liberal democracy. The Civic nationalist does not just say that people do have different nations, it says that they are allowed to have different nations within one state that they have ownership of. The Communitarian says there can only be one nation per state. The cosmopolitan says people do not have any special rights or responsibilities to their nation.
At least I have muh civic nationalism.
Can you do a breakdown of Japan's nationalism?
There are a lot of individual questions of nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, Irish nationalism, Israeli nationalism, Palestinian nationalism. I did not cover specific arguments for certain groups in this series.
how do I cite this video if I want to reference for a college essay?
The United States is a great example of civic nationalism.We have strong borders and multiculturalism.
It's time to remove your rose colored glasses 😂
The United States is an example of a capitalist empire, the worst kind - built on settler colonialism, genocide and slavery. No wonder it's a fervent supporter of other genocides, as we speak.
nuh uh u dont ur a failed democracy
You're explaining three different ones. I came for one.
So it's like someone wearing a shirt saying : Carnivore.
And all the person does is not eat meat, and has a vegan diet.
We-
This way of thinking is ultimately doomed to fail
The word nation means race its the original Latin meaning of the word so putting "civic" or "multiculturalism" in front of it makes no sense what so ever 🤦♂️😂
Nations are people not dirt
The modern use of the word "nation" can refer to people bound by a common culture or a common ethnic lineage. Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "nation (or national identity) which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties." The people who are fighting for Christian Nationalism share a common belief, not a common race. Civic nationalism is about those beliefs being about a pluralistic government. Why do you think that race is any more real than culture? th-cam.com/video/ZMcfZEvqLYY/w-d-xo.html
@@CarneadesOfCyrene The movement of "Christian Nationalism" itself is preposterous. The identity for being a Christian is very vague. Anyone can become a Christian as long as accepts Jesus or whatever. The point is that the concept of race is based on a biological reality. In this sense, ethnic nationalism is more valid rather than civic nationalism because it emphasizes the innate and tangible concept of sharing a common blood and common culture for that expression of that blood. Civic nationalism, similar to that of Christian Nationalism, is based on a vague idea of citizenship and legal paperwork, which I'd argue a social construct that doesn't hold any merit to the tangible reality of blood.
Very, VERY loose use of the word 'force'...
I would not force someone to hold up British values BUT, I would mildly shame them into doing so, if needed. It's what's happening in the UK atm, tho it's my values regarding this issue that people are attempting to shame. I'm a majority on this one and still my countries culture has been exceedingly tolerant of this abuse, it won't last much longer and we will flood them in rivers of shame when the time comes. No violence or "force" shall be needed. 😉
An oxymoron and cringe ;P
It is absurd to call Ukrainian nationalism civic. Nationalism in Ukraine is so extreme it borders on Nazism, proclaiming Nazi collaborators like Stephan Bandera as national heroes, banning languages and killing "others". Creating mythologies that the so called Holodomor was attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation, when hunger spread throughout rural Soviet Union, as a result of the brutal policies of the government, so it definitely was not an intentional attempt to "destroy the Ukrainian nation". But that is just one example of the brutal propaganda that CIA-linked Canadian and US foundations, filled with the relatives of Ukrainian Nazis have spread throughout Ukraine and of course have managed with the HATRED only in the western part. Stalin's policies of Ukrainization are key element of government's attempts to construct a nation, at that time Ukrainian schools where built, teaching Ukrainian history and culture.
None of that above is true except that yes, our nationalsim isn't civic, and that is a good thing