By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Bofferbrauer2 said:
contestgamer said:

Because I want countries to maintain their identities. Multicultural countries become Americanized countries. European countries have existed for thousands of years, with rich culture, geneology, customs, etc. America/Canada can be multicultural, because thats how they were created. Not every country needs to be. I dont even care if theyre good people or not, I care about maintaining identity and heritage. 

@bolded: Nationhood as a concept isn't even that old in europe, that basically emerged after the 100 years war when feudalism came to end.

And it's so ironic that so many brits apparently fear immigrants, considering how many out of their former colonies (especially British India) have settled there and brought their culture with them. Cheap eastern European workers have kept farming and factory production alive in the UK when everybody else moved to offices and services. The UK was a country of immigration throughout most of the last century. It's part of the heritage to be multicultural. If you don't like that, you'll have to throw everybody out with colonial heritage - but then the Island would be pretty empty.

Good to see someone who knows what they are talking about. European countries have, quite literally, not existed for thousands of years. The birth of the concept of the state emerged through the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which literally established the principles of what a state is, what a people is, and what is the relation between the Sovereign of a state, the citizen-subjects, and the nation. 

It took a couple of centuries more, still, to fully develop the notion of the 'nation-state', as enlightenment took onboard prior romanticism to situate the idea of a unitary nation-state, comprised of a homogeneous people. It wasn't until the early days of capitalism that states took on their current form, and it was only in the 19th century that we can clearly begin to see the emergence of nationalism as a principle of organization and as a tool of propaganda at the hands of the state apparatus and the governing elite.

Your second point, about the irony behind the former colonial past of Great Britain, is also salient, and well put. A country whose history has been defined by its colonial past is now hypocritically attempting to excise itself from the fruits of its actions. This new attempt to sanitize British culture and nationality, to deny the impacts all these minorities, ethnic and religious groups -- and indeed history itself -- had on Britain, is solipsism in its most blatant form.

It is easy to rewrite history, and to re-imagine history. It takes guts to open your eyes to the truth and face up to its consequences.

You can forget who you are, and where you've been. But to take pride in doing so is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

To those of you, you know who are: Go ahead, put your fingers in your ears. This deafening silence will always be your own self-betrayal. This is not about politics, but about self-respect. Manufacture history at your own peril.

Last edited by Helloplite - on 01 May 2018