by N R Dewi Nurmayani

I think many people mixing up between being the Nationalism and the Racism.

Nationalism has long been ignored as a topic in political philosophy, written off as a relic from bygone times. It came into the focus of philosophical debate two decades ago, in the nineties, partly in consequence of rather spectacular and troubling nationalist clashes, such as those in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet republics. The surge of nationalism usually presents a morally ambivalent, and for this reason often fascinating, picture.

The average person cannot distinguish between patriotism, nationalism and racism, and it is a mistake to assume they are degrees of the same order. Patriotism and racism are parts of the current political system, where nationalism is an order that has come both before and will come after the current order. It is a worldview and type of civilization that is irreconciliably opposed to the type of society we call “modern,” and is equally opposed to both patriotism and racism.

it is quiet thin line in between those two….:It’s easy to see how the sentiment underlying racism – the belief that one race is intrinsically superior to another – is a kind of pure prejudice that can be, and almost universally is, applied to groups defined by factors other than race, such as gender and sexuality: sexism is the belief that one gender is intrinsically superior to another. Is there really any difference between sexism and racism here? The object of prejudice is different, but the sentiment isn’t. These isms are all unjustified prejudice, distilled into pure form.

Nationalist societies are based on an eternal order which will benefit the entirety of any civilization, including the collective, its component individuals, and the surrounding environment. They do this by targetting the internal, or what makes us truly individuals, and by giving to each a place in which he or she can serve a larger order. Nationalist societies are thus both anti-individualistic, and affirming of the greater worth of the individual; there is no single competition for greatness, as the battle for wealth provides, but a sense of having a place in a cosmic order mirrored in a naturalistic human society.

Our goal is to nurture those who are rising in quality, preserve those who are consistent across generations, and slowly remove those who have criminal or parasitic intent, because as modern society teaches us, even giving them degrees and making them rich leaders does not remove the corruption in their souls. This conflicts with both modern society and racist ideology in that we believe each population must set its own standards, and thus to have outside-bred people in that population will subject them unjustly to its rules. For this reason, we believe not only in racial separation but in separation of each race into its component ethnicities, with greater precision as possible when approaching the local level. This is a contrast to racism, which believes one race is absolutely superior to all others, and patriotism, which believes all people joined by political ideas are of one society.

Although we believe in the separation of ethnic groups, we do not do this from a belief that other groups are “superior” or “inferior,” but from one that each population must govern itself in order to work organically. After all, culture arises when people of a similar heritage come together, and as culture determines those who rise or descend according to local standards, it breeds people who find harmony in its ideals with their own. We are thus opposed to racism because it not only corrupts a sensible concept, but turns a logical decision into a paranoiac and violent emotional one, ensuring future suffering for people of all races. As such, it is our belief that nationalism is simultaneously opposed to both racism and patriotism, which would include all races who swear allegiance to an abstract and unrealistic common political principle.

Nationalist societies are more respectful of nature, and would reverse the wholesale pollution and desecration caused by the last five hundred years. Nationalist civilizations respect all cultures and recognize that there can be no equality between them, as each is important for its own unique adaptation to its own part of the world; culture is to be enjoyed and defended for its own sake, not for its utility as a means to some political or economic end. Nationalist cultures give greater respect to the individuals and protect the working citizen from undue economic competition, while giving to that normal person a guaranteed living and stable social existence. Nationalism opposes the concept that one world government, media and economy can define one type of ideal person, whether blonde-haired and blue-eyed or dark-haired and dark-skinned, because in each part of the world there is a different culture with different values. Nationalists do not believe in a single right way of living, and there is no center to the nationalist universe, only endless potential for diversity.

It is our belief that nationalism is entirely misunderstood, and that often, nationalists revert to racism in a defensive posture; further, enemies of nationalism like to accuse it of racism. Our goal is to achieve a nationalist world order without the petty vengefulness and emotional overdrive caused by racism and patriotism, and we ask you to consider the possibility of such a world order and how you might work to achieve it.

People whom like the twats who scream “Racist Rights” When they forget that the acto of being racist takes away rights from other people.

All racists should be given a government mandated slap across the face so they can learn when to keep their ignorant b******* views to themselves.

for some other ordinary knowledge people,hardly to see those two different,because is almost very similar one to another…,is like the Love and the Hate

I’m also Nationalist,but I’m not Blind…I see those equality in all colours

E. Understanding ‘Race’ and Racisms in the 21st

Century: How Notions of ‘Race’ and Racisms are Experienced in New Social Media Technologies

Session Organizer: Millsom Henry-Waring, University of Melbourne, Australia – m.henrywaring@unimelb.edu.au

The increasing popularity of the new social media technologies such as Facebook™, MySpace™, Twitter™ and YouTube™ have brought about significantchanges in the ways in which we connect and communicate both locally and globally. The interactive, intense and instantaneous nature of the communication coupled the ability to reach large global audiences makes these mediums a source of possibility but also new sites of risk. On the one hand, a number of social science and feminist research on online spaces had heralded the disembodiment of ‘race’ as a social marker, freeing people to explore different alternative identities. However, a number social science researchers also argued that online spaces merely became another site for old forms of ‘race’ and racisms to be reintroduced and reinforced, on the other. Recent examples of how these online spaces have been used to espouse old and generate newer forms of racisms abound. As a result, this session aims to bring together emerging and critical work from academics, policy analysts and activists interested in comparatively exploring how ‘race’ and ‘racisms’ are experienced online.

online discrimination happen daily….

Indoctrination

While there may be some conceptual and moral differences between racism and nationalism, these seem insufficient to explain the huge gap between the purported prevalence of these. Consider, for instance, four possible combinations:

-Non-racists, non-nationalists

-Racists, non-nationalists

-Nationalists, non-racists

-Racist nationalists

Dad often talking about docrination,yes..what is it…what is all about the people believing…turn me to curious to discover the nationalism meaning all behind,and to those people whom ignorant b******* doesn’t see what is the different,by just doing the prejudice against the others indirect of doing the movement of the racialism doctrine

I’m not political person,I’m talking on the side view by philosophy way,beside sociology, the psychology,and the literary

Correctly defined and understood, National Socialism is an ethnic philosophy which affirms that the different races, the different peoples, which exist, are expressions of our human condition, and that these differences, this human diversity, should be treasured in the same way that we treasure the diversity of Nature. National Socialists believe that our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas: through the creation of a socially-engineered cypto-Marxist society. Furthermore, National Socialism is a pure expression of our own unique i.e.Aryan ethics, based as these ethics are upon the idealism of duty to the folk, duty to Nature, and upon the nobility of personal honor.

In addition, National Socialist ethics – being based upon the ideal of personal honour – means and implies that we National Socialists must strive to treat all people with courtesy and respect, regardless of their race and culture. This alone disproves the lie of National Socialism being “racist”, just as i.e.the true history of National Socialist Germany (as opposed to the lies about NS Germany) proves how honourable and respectful genuine National Socialists were toward others races and cultures.

Thus, in National Socialist Germany, groups such as Muslims and Buddhists were accorded full respect, and allowed to practise their religion freely. In the pre-war years, National Socialist Germany helped organize a pan-Islamic world congress in Berlin. Berlin itself was home to thriving Muslim and Buddhist communities, of many races, and the Ahmadiyya Mosque in Berlin held regular prayers even during the war years, attended by Arabs, Indians, Turks, Afghans and people of many other races. Indeed, the Berlin Mosque was one of the few buildings to survive the lethal, indiscriminate, Allied bombing and bombardment, and although damaged, it was clearly recognizable as a Mosque amid the surrounding rubble.

The point is that nationalism and racism are not the same:

-Racism is the idea that there are differences between races, and that one race is superior or inferior to the others. For racism to really be abolished, we must all become one race with one global government to enforce anti-racism.

-Nationalism is the idea that for the best of humanity, we should divide ourselves by heritage (a biological record of culture) so that each nation has its own values system and self-rule. It does not address the question of superior/inferior, but is opposed to one world government for any reason.

These two are radically different, and only one part of the picture

‎-Racism hopes to blame problems on a racial scapegoat. If the Hutus have a bad crop, it must have been Tutsi eating up the seed corn, or something.

-Nationalism says that our most basic form of political order is advanced tribalism: people are united by culture, heritage, language, customs and values ,instead of being united by political dogma, like “capitalist democracy” versus “socialist authoritarianism,” as they are in the nation-state, which is a political State pretending to be a nation.

‎-Racism hopes to blame problems on a racial scapegoat. If the Hutus have a bad crop, it must have been Tutsi eating up the seed corn, or something.

-Nationalism says that our most basic form of political order is advanced tribalism: people are united by culture, heritage, language, customs and values ,instead of being united by political dogma, like “capitalist democracy” versus “socialist authoritarianism,” as they are in the nation-state, which is a political State pretending to be a nation.

actually there’s many different argument in between those two,pro or contra by each of the party,it is also depends on the mental background of the person itself to interpret radically or not,beside plus minus on the knowledge any normal degree of the people seeing this,the expression it will manifestated in the daily life,in the social life,politically,and many more other influences 

some other people opinion about this two different,simply adding both in the same plate,without knowing deeper the meaning of those two,it’s sounds creepy hatred people would do such of opinion,this is what I’m thinking,and the worse is this kind of people trying to brainwash the others naive group people to pull the trigger of the hatred among all of us,spreading the lie of the true meaning from these two different subject,what the pity

P.S:‎”Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today.”

Views: 13816

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Comment by Valentine Olushola Oyedipe on April 28, 2015 at 2:45pm

This is an interesting article but with some conceptual ambiguities i.e racism/ patriotism. Nevertheless, the operationalization has indeed enabled me to understand your line of thought. I quite understood your stand point and share your sentiments on the politics of ideology an identity and ofcourse the associated crises that has come with it in this contemporary times. But the question is: how realistic or feasible is your proposed separation of each race in its components ethnicity in a modern time that we are, where most existing political units are amalgam of different ethnic nationalities?(taking into consideration the evolutionary law). In this respect,I think our major focus today should be on how to coexist irrespective of our ethnic diversity, how to coexist without disrespect for other peoples' culture, values and beliefs etc. How to coexist without down playing on other peoples' cultural rights. How to coexist without discrimination on racial /ethnic lines.In this contemporary times, nation-states are and should be built on strong ethical foundation. Consequently, how to build such ethically founded nation-states should be our major concern, not the separation. This is because there is unity  amidst of amazing diversity. Even nature that you have alluded to of which the biotic- including varieties of plants and animals can not survive significantly without the a biotic that includes varieties of elements such as oxygen, hydrogen etc. As such, it is the unity in diversity that sustains the planet earth and all that lives therein. Then what should stop our generation from pursuing a course of action towards our unity in diversity. That said.

On the issue of social media, the internet connectivity has made it very possible for people to have access to a variety of identities(not necessary adopted as alternative) suitable for them without any form of coercion or intimidation. Again, it is worthy to note that culture itself is dynamic, it is not static and the internet connectivity facilitates the exchange of cultural elements through diffusion among others. The internet also facilitates the sharing of technologies, inventions , innovations that  have cultural overtones which may not be possible if there is separation of each race into its component ethnicity-an artificial barrier. The internet has also facilitated the commercialization/ projection of cultures to different parts of the world and the most  convincing and widely accepted/ appreciated culture becomes a mass culture. with its elements being assimilated in different parts  of the world. The separation of people on the principle of nationalism based on the fact that one's nationalistic standards may be unjust or not palatable to other ethnic nationalities is synonymous with  racism at micro level(not on co lour lines) or ethnocentrism (language, beliefs and values).

It must also be noted that the idea of ethnic pluralism and multiculturalism are already explored alternatives which I think are more preferable to national socialism if we take the cost -benefit analysis of the ideologies. The strength in unity of diversity is enormous as compared with the strength in each diversity, nevertheless I quite agree that, we must all treasure our diversity because of its uniqueness.

Still on separation  for example, if the life support of group B is found in group A given group A's peculiarities and natural endowment, the physical separation of group B may lead to its death which raises a moral question. Why don't group A  accommodate group B such that group B will survive. The moral principle here is that group A should have perceived group B as a people like group A with a major unifying factor "humans" with souls which we all guide jealously for it not to perish. Life is more of give and take and interdependence.

Carnegie Council

The Future of Artificial Intelligence, with Stuart J. Russell

UC Berkley's Professor Stuart J. Russell discusses the near- and far-future of artificial intelligence, including self-driving cars, killer robots, governance, and why he's worried that AI might destroy the world. How can scientists reconfigure AI systems so that humans will always be in control? How can we govern this emerging technology across borders? What can be done if autonomous weapons are deployed in 2020?

Killer Robots, Ethics, & Governance, with Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, has a simple solution for stopping the future proliferation of killer robots, or lethal autonomous weapons: "Ban them." What are the ethical and logistical risks of this technology? How would it change the nature of warfare? And with the U.S. and other nations currently developing killer robots, what is the state of governance?

As Biden Stalls, Is the "Restorationist" Narrative Losing Ground?

U.S. Global Engagement Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev notes that former Vice President Joe Biden is, in foreign policy terms, most associated with a "restorationist" approach. How does this differentiate from other candidates? What approach will resonate most with voters?

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

VIDEOS

SUPPORT US

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2020   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.