Ethnic nationalism has its place; it should not be forced upon anyone, but nations have the right to determine themselves. Anyone who sides with Ukrainians against U.S., E.U., and Russian economic and military imperialism should see that.
I would not associate with any group whose primary requirement for membership is race or ethnicity, but if things like black men's business alliances and the Congressional Black Caucus can and should exist, then you've got to admit that exclusion on the basis of race is valuable, but discrimination by whites against non-whites in a white-dominated culture (or replace "white" with "majority" in all cases), not so much.
I don't support natives kicking out the descendants of colonizers. Colonizers themselves, yes, especially if they've broken treaties. I don't think it's necessary for Palestinians to kick out all Jews, nor Native Americans and Mexicans to kick out all non-native inhabitants of the United States, but I think there's little reason why some communities should be required to be open to outsiders.
Local autonomy with nationality as a factor is a viable solution for native peoples, especially those who have fought and died for the land they live on. And I think they should have the right to determine who can become a member or not, whether that's based on someone's blood quantum, or their adherence to the local culture, or both.
I think that, insofar as Native Americans and Mexicans are peoples who are native to the U.S. - and insofar as African-Americans are a displaced people - they have shared a common struggle. Their development and success is conditioned and potentially limited by that common struggle, so I think they should retain the right to discriminate.
But we should also realize that young Israelis and young Americans who did not immigrate but were born in their home nation-States, are also "displaced peoples" in that they might otherwise wish to live somewhere else. However, that entitles them neither to the land itself, nor the right to discriminate against other displaced and/or native peoples as they please. That right comes from somewhere else.
But we should also realize that young Israelis and young Americans who did not immigrate but were born in their home nation-States, are also "displaced peoples" in that they might otherwise wish to live somewhere else. However, that entitles them neither to the land itself, nor the right to discriminate against other displaced and/or native peoples as they please. That right comes from somewhere else.
Not long ago, businesses has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Considering some New York blacks' (including Muslims') perception that Jewish merchants are trying to destroy their communities with liquor, that African-Americans in Portland, Oregon risk getting displaced by white yuppies' Whole Foods, and that Koreans feared black criminals robbing them during the L.A. riots, it would make sense that native and displaced minorities should have the right to protect themselves, whether against the majority culture (i.e., whites) or against one another.
Consider the possibility of a Klansman or a neo-Nazi going to a supermarket and asking a Jew or a black person to decorate a pro-Klan or pro-Nazi birthday cake for them. If you think that's only unacceptable because the Klansman or neo-Nazi is white, then take for example a Jewish Nazi, or a Catholic Klansman. They've existed. Do you see now how "freedom from discrimination" only forces us to serve one another involuntarily?
Does an all-white business have the right to exist in a predominantly black neighborhood? If not, then suppose that the business has only one employee, whom is white. What now?
Does an all-white business have the right to exist in a predominantly black neighborhood? If not, then suppose that the business has only one employee, whom is white. What now?
Does a family-owned "all-Chinese business" have the right to hire a security guard and keep people out based on their ethnicity? If not, then what if the business is situated in an area with extraordinarily high violent racial and ethnic hate-crime rates, and there are many ethnicity-based gangs that hate Chinese people?
Most importantly, how is hiring a security guard anything but "discrimination"? I was told in college that discrimination no longer exists in the private sector. How can that be true if there are security guards and bouncers who are allowed to refuse service to people without having to explain why?
If a security guard keeps a Japanese person out of a Chinese business because of Japanese gang activity in the area, are we to automatically assume that a "hate crime" has occurred? Or should we simply respect the right of all businesses to discriminate on the basis of any criteria they please, because then we wouldn't potentially force a business owner to put his whole family at risk simply because someone who might be racist and violent demands "freedom from discrimination" and asks to be served?
"Being able to live a free life without facing discrimination" is not how I view nor define freedom. None of us has the right not to face discrimination, nor can we avoid discriminating in our everyday choices. We discriminate when we decide who to date, have sex with, and marry, and we discriminate when we choose our friends.
If I believed that I have the right not to be discriminated against, then I'd believe that I have no right not to be denied requests for sex and dating from women, and I'd be like the guy in L.A. who shot three women because he was angry that no woman would have sex with him. The freedom from discrimination is the right to order people to serve you by assenting to associate with you.
Lastly, national autonomy and communal autonomy require neither territorial integrity, nor well-defined international borders, nor the prevention of immigration. In the view of the panarchists, legal communities can exist side-by-side, within one another, and even on the same territory.
Imagine two people, each in his own apartment, one living above the other. Imagine that each one subscribes to, pays for, and receives goods and services from some company providing justice, security, and protection. Such a company could have ethnicity, race, culture - or things like hobbies, interests, personality type, etc. - as the determining factor, or as one of many determining factors (regarding membership, or rates, or conditions of membership, etc.).
We should keep in mind that what is desired by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 100 Black Businessmen of Madison - as well as by proponents of affirmative action - is precisely the kind of practice which is embraced by the national-anarchists; namely, the practice of using race or ethnicity as a condition influencing membership, whether in the public or private sector, and whether heritage is the sole criterion or but one of several criteria.
One of the arguments made by members of the Congressional Black Caucus in favor of the group is that it does not discriminate on solely one basis but rather on two bases. They do not allow non-blacks to become members, but they also do not allow non-congressmen to become members. This fact and their de facto exclusion of Republican blacks beg the following question: How does the act of tacking additional reasons to discriminate onto currently existing discrimination make that discrimination less discriminatory?
It is not that discrimination is universally harmful to minorities; it can be beneficial, but this is a controversial viewpoint. It's not difficult to understand why the topic of discrimination and segregation on the part of non-whites in the U.S. has not been fully explored nor discussed.
Ethnic, racial, religious, etc., separatism (and, more broadly, the freedom from association and from involuntary servitude) are valuable and acceptable as long as they are not forced. Understanding this - and that discrimination is all around us - could allow ethnic, cultural, racial, religious nationalism to exist in independent, autonomous, self-determining manners; without bringing territorial integrity into the mix, and without building border fences and checkpoints in order to prevent the flow of immigrants into an area.
I agree with everyone who points out that no "national anarchism" should occur if it actually depends on a State (i.e., local/territorial monopoly on violence, implying territorial integrity) to prop-up forced segregation, discrimination, or separatism based on ethnicity, race, culture, religion or any other characteristic or attribute (especially along the lines of borders drawn without respect to the rights of native peoples or the boundaries of local watersheds).
Imagine two people, each in his own apartment, one living above the other. Imagine that each one subscribes to, pays for, and receives goods and services from some company providing justice, security, and protection. Such a company could have ethnicity, race, culture - or things like hobbies, interests, personality type, etc. - as the determining factor, or as one of many determining factors (regarding membership, or rates, or conditions of membership, etc.).
We should keep in mind that what is desired by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 100 Black Businessmen of Madison - as well as by proponents of affirmative action - is precisely the kind of practice which is embraced by the national-anarchists; namely, the practice of using race or ethnicity as a condition influencing membership, whether in the public or private sector, and whether heritage is the sole criterion or but one of several criteria.
One of the arguments made by members of the Congressional Black Caucus in favor of the group is that it does not discriminate on solely one basis but rather on two bases. They do not allow non-blacks to become members, but they also do not allow non-congressmen to become members. This fact and their de facto exclusion of Republican blacks beg the following question: How does the act of tacking additional reasons to discriminate onto currently existing discrimination make that discrimination less discriminatory?
It is not that discrimination is universally harmful to minorities; it can be beneficial, but this is a controversial viewpoint. It's not difficult to understand why the topic of discrimination and segregation on the part of non-whites in the U.S. has not been fully explored nor discussed.
Ethnic, racial, religious, etc., separatism (and, more broadly, the freedom from association and from involuntary servitude) are valuable and acceptable as long as they are not forced. Understanding this - and that discrimination is all around us - could allow ethnic, cultural, racial, religious nationalism to exist in independent, autonomous, self-determining manners; without bringing territorial integrity into the mix, and without building border fences and checkpoints in order to prevent the flow of immigrants into an area.
I agree with everyone who points out that no "national anarchism" should occur if it actually depends on a State (i.e., local/territorial monopoly on violence, implying territorial integrity) to prop-up forced segregation, discrimination, or separatism based on ethnicity, race, culture, religion or any other characteristic or attribute (especially along the lines of borders drawn without respect to the rights of native peoples or the boundaries of local watersheds).
