I found this in your link:
"At a rally in Paris, Ms Le Pen said "I would decide on a moratorium on all legal immigration to stop this frenzy, this uncontrolled situation that is dragging us down".
After that, she said, France would introduce "much more drastic, more reasonable, more humane, more manageable rules" on immigration."
Your point?
My point is that she caters to hyperbolic assertions about immigration and echoes them. France has no "frenzy" when it comes to immigration: it hasn't opened its borders to refugees as much as, say, Germany or Sweden has, and it certainly hasn't done that for legal immigrants either.
Fair play to them (I generally oppose open-door immigration policies too), but she's kinda tilting at windmills to garner more votes even though there are genuine concerns about immigration buried under her hyperbolic messaging.
Is your problem with it because you think it will harm the French people or because you think people who immigrate deserve more benefits? If the latter, then I think that strengthens my point that you care little if not at all about the historical French identity.
Neither: my problem with it is that I'm against demonizing immigration and catering to fearmongering sentiments instead of tackling issues reasonably and proportionately.
Also, I find that argument to be a false dichotomy: it's entirely possible to allow immigration while maintaining national and historical identity. Pitting the two against each other as if they were inherently opposite goals is needlessly divisive and seems aimed at scapegoating immigration. It throws the baby out with the bathwater in lieu of adopting a nuanced approach.
True. When the flow was moderate and manageable.
Which is achievable without the stark measures proposed by Le Pen.
Colonialism, for better or for worse, is a branch of nationalism. That means that it was done to further the national goals - for the better of the people of that country. Le Pen and who supporters hold a different view of what the better of the French people means than the views held by the more liberal leaders the country has had over the years.
In my opinion, the above statement is a stronger argument against nationalism than anything I could have said here. You've just said that colonialism, an extant cause of millions of deaths as well as widespread exploitation globally, is a part of nationalism. This has historically had a major negative impact on my country and region, too.
Why shouldn't I strongly oppose or "vilify" an ideological leaning that has caused so much suffering where I live and elsewhere? If any ideology warrants that, it's one with outcomes as destructive as colonialism.
Needless to say, I view advancement of the "national goals" at the expense of the lives and stability of people elsewhere to be unethical, harmful, and fundamentally deserving of strong opposition. It's also inconsistent because it seeks to preserve one nation's culture and identity but has no issue with encroaching on the cultures and sovereignty of other nations to exploit their resources and advance the interests of a specific nation.
It is. The plan is the good of the people. That's a type of morality that appears to only be inconsistent with your type of morality.
Of course, and like almost everyone else, my type of morality is a hill I'm willing to die on, especially when another type of morality includes justifications for invading my country and/or exploiting it for another country's gain.
And? Why is dramatically different bad? Here we go again. You want every country to be uniform. The same in every single way. They can't even have different democratic policies in your view! Yeesh.
My point is that many other developed democracies are thriving and doing well without doing what Le Pen wants France to do. In this case, being dramatically different is a result of an artificial need rather than an actual one.
Yes, the most minimalistic of nationalism: waving a flag (or burning it?) and singing the French National Anthem on Bastille Day. As though national identity begins and ends with that.
I think this is another false dichotomy; there are a lot of points along the nationalist spectrum between the above and something like severely restricted immigration.
Furthermore, if a national identity entails painting with a broad brush and treating people from other countries as a threat regardless of individual differences, then it doesn't sound to me like a very desirable or defensible identity either. I see nothing wrong with evolving and improving one's identity instead of placing tradition above all other considerations.
Since the only form of nationalism you seem to be okay with is the most minimalistic and uniform sort, you equate any higher degree with terms such as "zealous", "extreme" and "isolated". That's vilifying.
You tell me: which levels of nationalism
do not include colonialism, xenophobia, or generally negative sentiment toward other people and countries based on nothing but their place of origin? Those would be the levels I wouldn't consider zealous, extreme, or isolated. Otherwise I stand by those descriptions and remain ready to elaborate on why I do.
I have never stated that everyone agrees me on this. However, nationalism is on the rise. I expect more and more Europeans will join such movements over the coming years, for the reasons I wrote on this thread.
History is largely cyclical, and countries oscillate between wildly differing ideologies over various periods. While I think younger generations are definitely more open to globalism and multiculturalism, I also don't expect nationalism to fade away anytime soon. If anything, I expect it to exist for as long as humans exist. It's neither new nor surprising (and the same goes for multiculturalism).
