Nationalism can be defined in this simple heuristic:
Nations (not nation as in government necessarily but as in nationality) are based around ethnicity
Different ethnic groups have different interests, allegiances, inherited values, and characteristics
Therefore it is better for everyone if each nation has it's own nation-state which is entirely operated by people of that nation who work to preserve
the nation and its interests
Civic Nationalism is a term used to describe an ideology originating primarily after WW2 that aims to be supposedly Nationalistic but rather than focusing
on ethnicity for the basis of nationality it focuses on so-called cultural values. It is prominent within modern Conservatism as a means of pushing
multiculturalism with a right wing lens.
What is a nation?
The ultimate difference between Nationalists and Civic Nationalists is the question of what a nation is. This ultimately comes down to how you can
even define something. If I said that water is actually mercury, and that H2O is now called mercury, no one would consider this since I would be
redefining terms for no valid reason despite what everyone else has always understood those terms to mean. But nations have always been defined ethnically.
This isn't something I've seen civic nationalists even argue against, and is very obvious especially considering that the whole point of Civic Nationalism
is redefining what Nationalism and nations are. Thus to save myself the effort I won't go through every instance of people stating the obvious. But
Civic Nationalists typically argue that America is an exception to the rule due to it's historic beliefs. Yet non-White immigrants only became allowed
in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar act, before then only "free White men of good character" were allowed to become citizens. Some would argue that that was just
an inevitable result of the American constitution, yet I struggle to see how the two are related. It's also worth noting that
the constitution was arguably written to apply to Whites,
according to one Harvard paper.
Yet either way, it doesn't matter what the constitution says in this regard. The founding fathers, as much as I deeply respect and revere them, are not
my source of objective truth. Russia was once Communist but that doesn't make Russian identity Internationalist. And America existed long before the
American revolution.
"But diversity is our greatest strength!
This is the most common defense of Civic Nationalist American identity, so no I am not strawmanning them by inserting this generalizing quote. I should
know that this is what they believe, since I used to be one.
Arguing that multiculturalism is Americas greatest strength and the reason it is the most powerful country in the world is ignorant both of the historical
reasons for Americas dominance as well as of many other countries who are multicultural.
Americas dominance on the world stage is due to many factors, for example any adversaries it has must sail across the ocean to get to it, and following the
world wars it was able to overtake Europe as an economic powerhouse. There are many reasons you could point to as being the cause of American success,
but there's zero reason to believe multiculturalism had anything to do with it.
And if diversity were such a strength, why are the most multicultural countries (Brazil, India, Syria just to name the top 3) so disfunctional? If diversity
is the main cause of our success, shouldn't they be more successful than us? Or at the very least not functioning horribly?
Furthermore, racial diversity has been strongly and consistently correlated with
disfunnction.
"But America is a nation of immigrants!"
If this is used in the context that it is reffering to the founders of America as supposedly being immigrants:
There is a fundamental difference between settlers and immigrants. America didn't exist before the English came to this continent and colonized America
into existence. Before then this territory was mostly uninhabited with some tribes roaming about. An immigrant is someone who migrates to a pre-existing
country.
Also even if we are to just take this argument at face value, than it could be said that this supposed immigration didn't work well at all for the native
tribes who already existed here, so to use this to support immigration is absurd.
If this is used in the context that it is arguing that America wasn't necessarily founded by immigrants but was strongly formed by them:
America did have strong waves of white (emphasis on white - since this argument seems to only be used to justify immigration from different races)
immigration, but it can hardly be said that they "built" America, coming from someone who has many ancestors whom were white immigrants (I am descendant
from the founding stock to be clear, but I do have many Irish and German ancestors as well). They were a labor force guided by Americans for economical
purposes. The nations they came from were not only the same race but typically very similar ethnic groups, primarily as Celts and Germans (Anglo-Saxons are
after all just a combination of Celtic and German). Italians also while not too similar to us genetically have a long history with us, since England first
started out as a Roman colony after all.
This is important since it allows for the preservation of nationalism, whereas large influxes of immigration from entirely different races and cultures
produces the opposite effect. In fact, the American government had written guides on how to control immigration in a way that preserves national identity.
And of course either way white immigration is acceptable. I wouldn't be arguing if it was just white immigration. Although many Slavic immigrants I have
encountered didn't even bother speaking english (no offense if you are a Slavic immigrant, I am sure there are quite a few who do assimilate and I just
don't notice as a result), but I think it's fair to say that this issue pales in comparison to hispanic mass migration so we can deal with that later.
