Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The Wikipedia definition of the term 'white nationalist' is "A type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity."
In light of the recent events in Charlottesville, this ideology is facing a lot of criticism in the media.
What are the main arguments made by notable opponents of White Nationalism against this ideology? Please add a source for each argument you mention in your answers.
What is White Nationalism
The ADL definition:
White nationalism is a term that originated among white supremacists as a euphemism for white supremacy. Eventually, some white supremacists tried to distinguish it further by using it to refer to a form of white supremacy that emphasizes defining a country or region by white racial identity and which seeks to promote the interests of whites exclusively, typically at the expense of people of other backgrounds. ADL: White Nationalism
The SPLC uses the following definition:
White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of non-whites. Groups listed in a variety of other categories - Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead, and Christian Identity - could also be fairly described as "white nationalist."SPLC: White Nationalists
What do White Nationalists want?
As seen in the definitions above, the goal of white nationalist is a racially pure or white-dominated country.
Depending on their ideology, this can happen by subjugating, expelling, or murdering Jews, black people, and all others they deem racially inferior.
Why are some opposed to White Nationalism
Most of the opposition against white nationalism is based on moral grounds.
Some hold the idea that all people should be equal, regardless of race. In the US, this was codified into law with the fourteenth amendment (among other). This idea is in direct conflict with white nationalism, which seeks white dominance.
Some also oppose the violence from white nationalists. Charlottesville mayor for examples stated: "People are dying, and I do think that it's now on the president and on all of us to say enough is enough. This movement has run its course."
Those that are directly targeted additionally oppose white nationalism as it threatens their safety and well-being (see for example the NAACP).
US White nationalists are controversial because their ideologies are close to those of the KKK and the Nazis, as spelt out in the Criticism section of the wikipedia article on the topic. In case you need further convincing, the first link is a video so you can see and hear the connection first hand.
The Nazis are hopefully not controversial. In case they are, the Holocaust is one of the crimes they committed while in power. It took a deadly world war for non-nationalists to stop them.
I will assume this refers to white nationalism in a multi-ethnic country; as ethnic nationalism in a mono-ethnic country is implicit unless the country is unusually cosmopolitan.
Since this question would relate to the resurgent visibility of US White Nationalism; the counter-arguments to preserving/restoring a white-majority country with some arbitrary set of white cultural characteristics are:
So cost is very high and the pay-out is very low. And deontologically it's wrong.
The most important arguments against white nationalism result from the definition you gave:
A type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.
White people are a race: it is not true. It does not mean that there are no ethnical differences between people, but that it is not possible to define precisely a race. In Western Europe, Arabic people are not seen as white, while in America they are described as Caucasian - that is the same category as any other white. When do you stop to be white?
Maintain a white national population: to do that, you need to restrict the rights of foreigners to come in your country, which most States do, but also to forbid wedding with foreigners, or at least to limit the freedom of your own population. And what do you do with people of other "races" already living in the country? You do not have a lot of solutions: killing them, deporting them, limiting their rights...
a white national identity: national identity is not a matter of colour. In "What is a nation?", Renan defines a nation as people that share history and want to live and act together, as opposed to a "race". A white American and a white Russian share less history than a white and a black American. You said that there has been white Celtic people in UK for 50 000 years, but actually you only know that there has been Celtic people in UK for 50 000 years. I would be very surprised if you had any proof that those Celtic weren't black, or asian, or anything else for their first 30 000 years in UK. The culture they transmitted remains, not their skin colour.
I am going to try to do this from a political theory perspective and attempt to cut the generalizing of a group as much as possible i.e. No "It's bad because Nazi's did it" it's true and a sore point but not a contemporary argument nor is blaming a concept for who is practicing it. What is important is the impact and results, which personally tend to be gross disenfranchisement and dehumanization which can lead to great atrocities if pushed too far WW2 and The Middle East are great examples. This goes for all forms of ethnocentric nationalism, even Africa has had it's share of genocides over this
Albeit generalizing political theory tends to get more criticism than just individual bias so yeah I'll make a chat and place it below for arguments and amend my answer after debate or arguments if you are unhappy with the categorization.
Now having braced myself for the coming storm
White Nationalism in Western Culture is the people in power saying they want to stay in power over those with less power. As such it can be seen that the bourgeoisie is stating that they do not want to let go of power and implies potential harm for those not White in the White Nation. Where as other ethnocentric forms of nationalism are then seen as Equalist movements to balance the roles of power and revolting against the oppressors, see Malcom X for instance. Marx himself did not particularly care about Nationalism in general though just so that Inter-Nationalism could bring down Captialism as such a perspective on class struggles should be able to better explain this point
Libertarian L1, a bit complicated
Left leaning Libertarians tend to feel that nationalism is a bi-product of groups however ethnocentric nationalism may imply potential harm placing undo stress unto the other groups though that would be further left Libertarians with the more center left would just say it is fine so long as it is not violating Nonaggression principle
Right leaning Libertarians may argue that nationalism has no place in a free society as all have the right of movement, but would ignore it should it arise as again Nonaggression principle
Centrist would see that social equality is balanced and to such extent would find White Nationalism unappealing and wrong as it puts one man on top of another due to simple birth factors.
Fascist - Tends to be called Extreme Nationalism
Government mandated law on what it considers worthwhile people in the government. What constitutes "worthwhile" is up to the ruling party, as such could be viewed as good could be viewed as gulag worthy. At it's roots though it is bred from the concept of Nationalism.
Socialistic tend to share a Marxist PoV just with less of an oomph and more economic freedom for the individual. Though a gross over simplification like most things here all I can say is... see Marxism
Please note in many ideologies all forms of ethnocentric nationalism are looked down upon. Just because a media organization is saying something does not make it the primary standpoint of an ideology. Media loves ratings and shocking concepts generate ratings
The Wikipedia definition of the term 'white nationalist'
also states...
White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups of white nationalism. Separatists seek a white-only state; supremacists believe that white people are superior to nonwhites,[4] taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[7]
A lot of people do not like Social Darwinism proponents, White Supremacists, Racists and Nazis. Hence the controversy regarding groups like this.
The most recent Philip Defranco Show, of August 14 2017, summarize a central viewpoint as to why white nationalism is permanently associated with White Supremacy, Nazi's, KKK, etc. It is possible that there is a subset that hold white nationalist view points that don't adhere to the ideals of white supremacy. Even in that eventuality, they're doomed by the overriding cultural understanding.
White nationalists are impugned by the people standing next to them; from the recent activities in Charlottesville, preceding the vehicular homicide, there was the "Unite the Right" pre-rally march on the University of Virginia Campus. Among the white nationalists were white supremacists and Nazi's chanting Zieg Heil and throwing out Nazi Salutes.
The concept of a passive, "we just want to help ourselves," white nationalism is forever tainted by its associations with white supremacy, much like the passive ends of the Black Lives Matter movement and their more violent ends, or progressive protestors and Anti-Fa.
On the last, AntiFa and White Nationalists only differ in those they wish to extol; past that, there are more similarities than either group would admit. Ben Shapiro does well to highlight the violence between AntiFa and the White Supremicists in Charlottesville and the mob rule that occurred. The Alt Right/White Supremicists are bad for the US republic. AntiFa is bad for the US republic.
You are ruined by the worst among you.
Well, for starters, I can see lots of reasons why anybody who believes there is such a thing as a "white race" would at least be considered to be out of touch with medical science. And since just about every definition of White Nationalism includes the believe in the existence of a "white race", it seems one of their main premises is as flawed as believing in a flat earth.
The concept of race as a biological phenomenon has run its course since there is absolutely no scientific evidence to sustain such a notion.
One can argue for the use of race as a social construct, but in that case, skin colour has as much to do with it as shoe size.
References are easy to find, but here are some examples of articles trying to explain why biological race is nonsense:
Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning.
A paper by Alan R. Templeton on NCBI
Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not.
An AAPA statement that was published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
