Nativism, the idea that inhabitants of a nation should have a privileged status above everyone else, that they have a greater claim to live within that nation, that their culture should be kept intact and not 'spoiled' by an influx of foreign peoples and that the government and people of that nation should only care about other inhabitants of the nation who should always come first above foreigners.
I really really hate this idea, but it seems to be accepted by most people as some basic truism, how do we fight against it?
In terms of "nation" and
In terms of "nation" and "foreign" where do you draw the line? Me and the rest of the working class live in the world therefore we should control its resources?
jondwhite wrote: In terms of
jondwhite
I was only describing how the nativists think, I don't really like using the term 'foreign' or 'foreigner'.
I'd use it to mean a country beyond another country in question under the existing social system only for lack of a better term and because that's what most people would gather from it, but yeah I don't view these countries and borders as naturally occurring and I think the term has really negative 'us and them' connotations.
Not really sure I’d make a
Not really sure I’d make a distinction between ‘nativism’ and ‘nationalism’.
My experience is that it is very hard to argue against this ‘basic truism’ idea. Perhaps to undermine it one has to argue on the basis of mutual respect and the fact that to flourish a culture needs enriching by ‘borrowing’ from others.
The fundamental complication is in the power relationships (real and imaginary) between different groups. In a world where competition is understood to be the driving force behind everything, to give up ones national identity (and its privileges) appears suicidal. One set of ideas must be replaced by another. Obviously, I think the only way to demolish this insanity is to strive to germinate the idea of world-wide working class solidarity.
Auld-bod wrote: Not really
Auld-bod
They go hand in hand so I guess there isn't much point in doing so. I view nationalism as being a more broader term though, and nativism describing a selfish, inward and often xenophobic tendency within nationalism. Also there are probably people who wouldn't identify as nationalists, but still voice nativist views, for example maybe environmentalists that oppose immigration to avoid population growth. I think nativists probably think they are being pragmatic in thinking that we have to be concerned about our 'own' people and society before we consider anyone else.
I think its really important that we dispel these ideas which seem to be upheld by the majority of people or else it will be really difficult for any revolutionary movement to succeed.
Also I think part of the reason people have these ideas might be due to some sense of autonomy, that a communities identity should be maintained and be free to practice their culture and way of life without interference, I am not really sure how to answer this.
Nationalism though is probably easier to attack, we can say that the idea of a homogeneous block of people all sharing the same culture and interests is a myth, that cultures change over time and that they are often socially constructed in the interests of an elite class.
Also isn't it possible that we could have anarchism, so no longer any nation states, but people could still be nativist, preferring people of their own ethnicities and cultures and being selective about allowing people of different cultures/ethnicities into the community. Not that I am in favour of that at all, it lends into 'anarcho nationalism', I just think its a big problem that I am not really sure how to address.
Interesting questions
Interesting questions scallwag. All the more interesting because we are living within a horrible advanced capitalist system that is messing up lots of people.
I have a simple idea of anarchism that is voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anything else we build as and when :)
I believe the capitalist borders are crap and reflect nothing about our real needs. We will live how we decide for ourselves...
I think ativism is perhaps a
I think ativism is perhaps a bit more 'pragmatic' in the eyes of people who believe in it, for example people who don't consider themselves racists will say things ike 'there are already too many people here' 'some cultures can't / don't want to integrate' and so on.
It's quite hard to argue against because it's not necessarily logical or even thought-out and doesn't need to form part of a coherent ideology.
The other day when my doctor was saying that there were too many foreigners who didn't want to integrate and who couldn't be integrated etc I said that the 'welcome' offered to them was substandard, for example in the 60s thousands of people were brought over for cheap labour, put in cheap, ghettoised housing etc, expected to not participate in public life and to fuck off when the jobs disappeared 20 years later. He actually agreed with me, but I don't know if that actually means he'll stop thinking that the immigrants are the problem.
I try to challenge what I can on a factual basis and avoid ideological stuff that makes people switch off, I'm not sure if it is particularly effective.
Sometimes I just highlight how ridiculous the notion of nations are, pointing out how young they are and how they were invented, imposed at the cost of the 'native' cultures that people want to protect and so on.