Reddit mentions of Nations and Nationalism (New Perspectives on the Past)

I'll preface this by saying you're not actually arguing against what I'm saying as opposed to what you wish I was saying, it is a bit frustrating.

I never said Europe was multi-racial before the 19th century, simply that race wasn't a factor as much, and that the concept of whiteness didn't exist. Take for example Spain. Spaniards were considered both Spaniards and Christians, that was how they were defined. It didn't really matter that they had a duskier skin tone. Same thing with Sicilians and Neapolitans.

>Your point about these few that served in leadership positions (name one after the collapse of Rome and before the 19th century) once again does not dispprove my point at all. They were exceptions, not the norms. They were a tiny percentage of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas-Alexandre_Dumas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal (Pushkin's ancestor to boot)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_de%27_Medici,_Duke_of_Florence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estevanico

There's more. Of course they weren't the majority, they're nowhere close to be even today, and it's unlikely it'll change for some time yet. But the fact is that physical appearance wasn't that big of a deal if you had skills and ideas to offer.

>The idea that a shared identity wasn't facilitated by a shared appearance is ridiculous. Our whole system in Europe between the fall of Rome and the modern era had one of its most basic pillars on the concept of continuity of generations. From King to peasant, the idea of family and inheritance was central. [...]

I never argued against this, merely that religion, origin and allegiance were far more important determinants. If you were black or moorish back then, sure you got some odd looks and you'd always be apart and special, but there wasn't that racialist bent you find in the 19th century. You weren't considered necessarily "inferior" and generally monarchs welcomed strangers to their court, using their skills and cultural innovations to improve their realm. Examples could be Peter the Great travelling around Europe to learn shipbuilding, the Austrians adopting (or at least popularising) coffee after the Battle of Vienna, where large Ottoman stocks were seized and so on and so forth. And this is just in a European context, there's many more examples elsewhere of successful cultural integration.

>[...] To put it down to what you say would deny the existence of nations in the first place. We would all become some generic and bland culture, with no heart or sole, no sense of inclusiveness that builds the nation.

If you're interested in how nations form, I strongly suggest reading the following:

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities

Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism

*Anthony D. Smith, Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: A cultural approach

Please don't think I'm just title dropping, but nations and nationalism happen to be topics close to my heart, and in academia, the essentialist approach has been largely discredited. The three authors above present a range of opinions that could interest you. I personally prefer Anthony Smith combined with a conflict driven approach to the formation of nations (basically, nations form because they encounter other nations and thus define themselves in comparison to them. I can expand more on this in another post.)

>No, it is well established amongst the elite in Europe. The majority of people in Europe want reduced immigration. Wanting immigration is really at this point an extremist idea.

I'm not saying that people do not debate whether or not there should be less or more immigrants, merely that almost no one is advocating closing the borders and taking in no immigrants at all. After all, unless natality rates rise across the West, we will have to keep "importing" immigrants.

>And if we accept mass non-white immigration, then we can say good bye to that. Any invasion breaks the continuity of generation (as I noted, there remains an issue with the British identity as a result of the Anglo-Saxon invasion), but one which leaves such a visible break is bound to bring an end to nations.

I disagree, it merely means that the British identity will change. Strangely enough in Canada we don't seem to have half the issues you have with your ethnic immigration, and we are basically a nation of immigrants, many of which are non-white.

>As I say, the biological fact of race is irrelevant. It is the pysical appearance. Europe has always been white. We might be about to see a huge upheaval in the demographics of our continent, and with that will come and end to our continuous and historic culture, just as happened with the collapse of Rome.

And this is the thing. You don't actually disagree with this point. You know this will change culture, to the point at which it is unrecognisable. It will be something new. The difference is, I don't want this to happen, and you do.

Okay, this is the point where I explain my actual position, which I've alluded to in my earlier posts. Having discussed Rome, I think I clearly highlighted the difference between taking small bits of culture from different people here and there and using them to enhance your own culture (Republic-Early Empire) versus uncontrolled hordes of migrants rampaging through your territory (late empire). One does not lead necessarily to the other.

The original topic was about small enclaves (Chinatowns) and the integration of small parts of other cultures to enhance the dominant culture.

This is what I support: Limited immigration with an open-minded policy, in order to create the best culture possible, while maintaining the historical and cultural heritage (especially the language) of the dominant culture.

I never said mass immigration was desirable. On the other hand I did take a historical perspective by saying that given the current rates of immigration and the increase of mixed marriages, the British culture in a few decades/centuries will look very different than it does now, and might even not be majority white as opposed to mixed. It's just how things are, as our world becomes more inter-connected, boundaries become more malleable, especially with communication technologies.

Finally, we should see other cultures as potential sources of wealth. Take what is good for us, then leave the rest. We're already doing it daily. Look at all the sushi shops around, hell, Manchester even has a Curry Mile (though I believe Curry was invented in Britain by Indian immigrants, correct me if I'm wrong there). Shisha bars, alcohols from everywhere around the world, world litterature etc...

If you want to really punish/enlighten yourself, here's a decent chunk of the texts from the course list:

Nations and Nationalism (New Perspectives on the Past)

The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism (Wiles Lectures, 1996.)

The Brothertown Nation of Indians: Land Ownership and Nationalism in Early America, 1740-1840

Gendered Nations: Nationalisms and Gender Order in the Long Nineteenth Century

Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration

Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837; Revised Edition

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (New Edition)

Globalisms: The Great Ideological Struggle of the Twenty-first Century (Globalization)

I think it'd be best if we just ended this here because it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that you've never had any sort of formal or informal education on nationalism. Here are two books that could start you off, if you're really interested:

Nations and Nationalism

The Limits of Loyalty

I'm sorry to just break it off like this but this is much more nuanced than you might think and I don't really have the time or the patience to explain books worth of information to you when you can read by yourself and you're interested in politics anyway.