I'm sorry, I thought ethno-nationalist who wanted to deport black people because they are the wrong 'ethnicity' were concerned about ethnicity.
Congratulations: if you are talking about ethnic homogeneity, the length of time a people have inhabited a place is relevant. Or are you going to tell me that the Irish aren't from Ireland because they are Celtic and not the native pre-historic inhabitants of the island?
And you'd be wrong. Ethnicities tend to form around specific geographic areas. When you remove ethnicities to sufficiently different areas, they become different ethnicities. The Boer are not the Dutch. When you leave them for a sufficient length of time, they become of that place too.
A foreigner you would deport is not someone who's family has lived here for over 250 years.
Again completely irrelevant. Nothing of that contradicts his idea. The Boer are not Dutch and in theory his ethno-state would also be different, I don't think he objects to that.
Did he imply foreigner or just all the non-white ethnicities? I think he explicitly said also all the blacks, implying he does not care how long someone someone's family was in US.
Again as long as Ahmed is as much European as Fritz then the family who is here for 250 years or 10 years is irrelevant, they can be just as what ever somewhere else. In fact they can be what ever they want where ever they want.
It's completely relevant. If two populations lived 250 years apart they are going to be distinct ethnic groups, especially with intermarriage of other populations.
That is why he's wrong to assume that an ethnicity that is home in the place he is deporting them from would be a legitimate act of deportation.
This fascinates me. When did they stop being Dutch? In the play 1776, Benjamin Franklin talks about the colonists making a new race of people, deserving of a new nation. Did the Boers fell that way?
There's not going to be a singular moment, but I'd bet if anyone cited one it might be the time when the Dutch basically let them get owned by England, and then realizing that there wasn't really a home to go back to. When did the Americans become not English? What of the Australians, Canadians, or South Africans? And what of Rhodesians? Some Anglo, some were Afrikaner, and now they have no state. If Rhodesians never die, then who are they?
There's not normally a point where the people are simply cut from the parent group, but there's a slow change, and then a sudden realization that "we're not like you anymore..."
This is actually why I love "The Might of Nations". The book is genuinely trying to grapple with this concept in the 1960's when colonial empires are are letting go of their colonies, and the colonies are divided among ethnic groups, but are also trying to unify as an independent state.
There truly is something particularly special about becoming American. It really was a new race/nation of people, even if they didn't understand it while they were doing it.
I'm sorry, I thought ethno-nationalist who wanted to deport black people because they are the wrong 'ethnicity' were concerned about ethnicity.
Congratulations: if you are talking about ethnic homogeneity, the length of time a people have inhabited a place is relevant. Or are you going to tell me that the Irish aren't from Ireland because they are Celtic and not the native pre-historic inhabitants of the island?
I'm saying it is irrelevant.
If Ahmed is just as much European as Franz then OP has all the rights to build his ethno-state where ever he wants.
And you'd be wrong. Ethnicities tend to form around specific geographic areas. When you remove ethnicities to sufficiently different areas, they become different ethnicities. The Boer are not the Dutch. When you leave them for a sufficient length of time, they become of that place too.
A foreigner you would deport is not someone who's family has lived here for over 250 years.
Again completely irrelevant. Nothing of that contradicts his idea. The Boer are not Dutch and in theory his ethno-state would also be different, I don't think he objects to that.
Did he imply foreigner or just all the non-white ethnicities? I think he explicitly said also all the blacks, implying he does not care how long someone someone's family was in US.
Again as long as Ahmed is as much European as Fritz then the family who is here for 250 years or 10 years is irrelevant, they can be just as what ever somewhere else. In fact they can be what ever they want where ever they want.
It's completely relevant. If two populations lived 250 years apart they are going to be distinct ethnic groups, especially with intermarriage of other populations.
That is why he's wrong to assume that an ethnicity that is home in the place he is deporting them from would be a legitimate act of deportation.
This fascinates me. When did they stop being Dutch? In the play 1776, Benjamin Franklin talks about the colonists making a new race of people, deserving of a new nation. Did the Boers fell that way?
Honestly? Yes.
There's not going to be a singular moment, but I'd bet if anyone cited one it might be the time when the Dutch basically let them get owned by England, and then realizing that there wasn't really a home to go back to. When did the Americans become not English? What of the Australians, Canadians, or South Africans? And what of Rhodesians? Some Anglo, some were Afrikaner, and now they have no state. If Rhodesians never die, then who are they?
There's not normally a point where the people are simply cut from the parent group, but there's a slow change, and then a sudden realization that "we're not like you anymore..."
This is actually why I love "The Might of Nations". The book is genuinely trying to grapple with this concept in the 1960's when colonial empires are are letting go of their colonies, and the colonies are divided among ethnic groups, but are also trying to unify as an independent state.
There truly is something particularly special about becoming American. It really was a new race/nation of people, even if they didn't understand it while they were doing it.