|
|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
Poop, you just perverted the definition of Nationalism.
Also, even if everything you just said is true.....I haven't heard any of the people who identify as nationalist, ever say anything about an all-white America.
Rather, I've heard them argue for an all-american-america. By your definition, they are American-nationalists. What's wrong with that? How is it racist? How do you get from there....to "all-white america"
Just because they happen to be white, doesn't mean that you get to super-impose a racist agenda on to their platform.
You're mind-reading again.
I was talking about white and black nationalists and you somehow took that to mean I think every type of nationalist bases their idea on colour.
An anti-immigrant American nationalist is more commonly referred to as a nativist. So why would anyone go ape-shit over nativists? I suspect it's because they (rightly or wrongly) correlate that attitude with racism/intolerance/other bad stuff.
If you take Trump as an example; he doesn't rail against immigration in general, he mainly rails against immigration from countries whose people happen to be a different colour and/or religion than white/christian (e.g., Mexico, the Middle East). I've never heard him say 'don't let in any more white protestant europeans, they're fucking this country right up! Build a Wall on the border of Canada!' or the like.
Perhaps this is mere coincidence, and one could argue that Mexican immigration is more important to control due to the sheer numbers involved, and non-christian immigrants don't share christian values and are as such 'un-American'. And if Trump made those kinds of cogent and reasoned arguments they'd be more palatable. But instead he aims for the heart and not the head with words like 'bad hombres' and 'zomg radical muslim terrorism'. It's this language and the tacit racism/intolerance it suggests that gets many people's backs up.
|
Reply With Quote