Great piece. I enjoyed the explanation of how totalitarian (and contradictory) a state which consistently applied civic nationalism would have to be.
I think it would also be effective to explain how totalitarian a more realistic civic nationalist state would be. This could mean a Britain with a stricter integration strategy, or a reframing of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc as civic nationalist states. They were explicitly multiethnic, and based citizenship on belief in socialist principles, even if they didn't denaturalise dissidents as 'Valuesstan' would.
Enjoyed that. For my tuppence, a nation needs both a degree of ethnic- and civic nationalism, properly understood. Ethnicity includes, as I understand it, a sense of shared DNA but also the storytelling that goes with groups that have lived a long time together.
This latter aspect is what we need to inculcate in our fellow citizens, whether they’ve been here for generations or got here more recently.
Scruton says that a nation is a group of people who feel a sense of solidarity towards one another and feel attached to a particular strip of land. Well, the stories we need to tell ourselves are our own history, related to aloud strip of land, or at least our own myths. My favourite focus for this would be on the development of parliament and the common law, as told by the endless series of rebellions that established them. This way you get the values but also why they’re important - because the alternative is fighting.
But you need values too in practice. After all, if we all agreed we loved our country but found no agreement in what we wanted to do together being a nation would be a bit useless. Hence civic nationalism has its place, but it needs to come from those stories.
I’m heartened ever so slightly in what is otherwise a gloomy topic for me, by the story of the aztecs. They conquered their subject peoples in Mexico; they knew they were from somewhere else, but regarded themselves as the inheritors of their subject peoples’ myths and perpetuated them as if their own.
We need something of that line of thinking in England (yes, England).
My DNA test showed ancestry from North Africa, Scandinavia, Belgium and Ireland, less than 50% British (mainly Scottish). I look and sound British and am probably mainly influenced by European Enlightenment values, democracy etc. Does that make me a Civil Nationalist?
The etymology of the word 'nation' is illustrative:
"c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups."
Nationalism is loyalty to ones nation... to a race. Who is the British race? A coalition of the English race, the Scottish race, the Welsh race, and the Irish race. It really is not rocket science.
Confusion is created by post nationalist marxist leninist secular morons who go around telling any new arrival with a piece of paper they are now British. They are not. It is not about institutions or princes or a set of codified values. It is blood and soil.
It used to be said the first duty of government was to protect the nation. Can you imagine a modern British politician prioritising the protection of the British race above all things? They can't even utter the phrase "British race". Of course, now they claim the first duty of government is to protect British "citizens".
I've always found the phrase 'British values' utterly repellent. What is a value? A product has value. I prefer virtues to values. Virtues are moral excellence... universal, something all can aspire to. We used to have Christian and Chivalric virtues, now they are considered obsolete by people who don't even know the meaning of the word 'nation'.
Idk, I feel like this is a very effective takedown of a form of civic nationalism that no civic nationalist actually believes. "British values" (perhaps more accurately called "western values" or "enlightenment values") aren't a requirement for citizenship; rather, they are the traits of a model citizen, that ideally every person living in Britain would have.
Compare, say, the NHS's public health advice. The NHS routinely advises us all to live healthy lifestyles, because this in both our interest and theirs - we have healthier lives, and they have less work. Nonetheless, if I ignore their advice and drank myself into a coma, the NHS would still take care of me, it wouldn't leave me to drown in my own vomit. I feel like civic nationalism is the same deal; "we really want you to believe these values, but if you don't we will put up with it anyway, because the state is there to serve its people not the other way around."
As an outsider looking in I have no idea what British nationalism is about. If you poll the average American and/or Australian they would have a predictable set of values in mind.
But what is Britain even about? Loyalty to a king, to the Anglican Church, to people of particular heritage or culture (which is different as is the case of France and Japan), to a set of national values? Most of you guys can never give me a predictable set of answers.
Also wouldn't ethnic nationalism require UK to get partitioned into Scotland, Wales, England etc. Northern Ireland would have to go back to Ireland.
Also the whole genetic proximity thing is strange to me. Like, hypothetically, if native Brits all converted to Islam and wanted to be live in a theocracy (which I suppose the UK technically is since your Head of State is called the DEFENDER OF THE FAITH), would you really love and fight for your country. Like seriously?
Great piece. I enjoyed the explanation of how totalitarian (and contradictory) a state which consistently applied civic nationalism would have to be.
I think it would also be effective to explain how totalitarian a more realistic civic nationalist state would be. This could mean a Britain with a stricter integration strategy, or a reframing of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc as civic nationalist states. They were explicitly multiethnic, and based citizenship on belief in socialist principles, even if they didn't denaturalise dissidents as 'Valuesstan' would.
It is a difficult topic to wrestle with - good attempt ! I think Sir Roger Scruton provides the answer in his writings on the topic .
Enjoyed that. For my tuppence, a nation needs both a degree of ethnic- and civic nationalism, properly understood. Ethnicity includes, as I understand it, a sense of shared DNA but also the storytelling that goes with groups that have lived a long time together.
This latter aspect is what we need to inculcate in our fellow citizens, whether they’ve been here for generations or got here more recently.
Scruton says that a nation is a group of people who feel a sense of solidarity towards one another and feel attached to a particular strip of land. Well, the stories we need to tell ourselves are our own history, related to aloud strip of land, or at least our own myths. My favourite focus for this would be on the development of parliament and the common law, as told by the endless series of rebellions that established them. This way you get the values but also why they’re important - because the alternative is fighting.
But you need values too in practice. After all, if we all agreed we loved our country but found no agreement in what we wanted to do together being a nation would be a bit useless. Hence civic nationalism has its place, but it needs to come from those stories.
I’m heartened ever so slightly in what is otherwise a gloomy topic for me, by the story of the aztecs. They conquered their subject peoples in Mexico; they knew they were from somewhere else, but regarded themselves as the inheritors of their subject peoples’ myths and perpetuated them as if their own.
We need something of that line of thinking in England (yes, England).
My DNA test showed ancestry from North Africa, Scandinavia, Belgium and Ireland, less than 50% British (mainly Scottish). I look and sound British and am probably mainly influenced by European Enlightenment values, democracy etc. Does that make me a Civil Nationalist?
Not necessarily.
The etymology of the word 'nation' is illustrative:
"c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups."
Nationalism is loyalty to ones nation... to a race. Who is the British race? A coalition of the English race, the Scottish race, the Welsh race, and the Irish race. It really is not rocket science.
Confusion is created by post nationalist marxist leninist secular morons who go around telling any new arrival with a piece of paper they are now British. They are not. It is not about institutions or princes or a set of codified values. It is blood and soil.
It used to be said the first duty of government was to protect the nation. Can you imagine a modern British politician prioritising the protection of the British race above all things? They can't even utter the phrase "British race". Of course, now they claim the first duty of government is to protect British "citizens".
I've always found the phrase 'British values' utterly repellent. What is a value? A product has value. I prefer virtues to values. Virtues are moral excellence... universal, something all can aspire to. We used to have Christian and Chivalric virtues, now they are considered obsolete by people who don't even know the meaning of the word 'nation'.
Idk, I feel like this is a very effective takedown of a form of civic nationalism that no civic nationalist actually believes. "British values" (perhaps more accurately called "western values" or "enlightenment values") aren't a requirement for citizenship; rather, they are the traits of a model citizen, that ideally every person living in Britain would have.
Compare, say, the NHS's public health advice. The NHS routinely advises us all to live healthy lifestyles, because this in both our interest and theirs - we have healthier lives, and they have less work. Nonetheless, if I ignore their advice and drank myself into a coma, the NHS would still take care of me, it wouldn't leave me to drown in my own vomit. I feel like civic nationalism is the same deal; "we really want you to believe these values, but if you don't we will put up with it anyway, because the state is there to serve its people not the other way around."
As an outsider looking in I have no idea what British nationalism is about. If you poll the average American and/or Australian they would have a predictable set of values in mind.
But what is Britain even about? Loyalty to a king, to the Anglican Church, to people of particular heritage or culture (which is different as is the case of France and Japan), to a set of national values? Most of you guys can never give me a predictable set of answers.
Also wouldn't ethnic nationalism require UK to get partitioned into Scotland, Wales, England etc. Northern Ireland would have to go back to Ireland.
Also the whole genetic proximity thing is strange to me. Like, hypothetically, if native Brits all converted to Islam and wanted to be live in a theocracy (which I suppose the UK technically is since your Head of State is called the DEFENDER OF THE FAITH), would you really love and fight for your country. Like seriously?
Thank you Mr. Ahmed, very cool!