The Utter Normality Of Ethnonationalism--Except For Whites
By Prof. Kevin MacDonald

Original article complete with hyperlinks
http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/080327_muller.htm

Jerry Z. Muller's Foreign Affairs article, Us and Them: The Enduring
Power of Ethnic Nationalism (March/April, 2008), is a grim and timely
reminder of the power of ethnicity in human affairs. It has explosive
implications for the future of the United States and the West.

Muller demonstrates that, over the last 150 years or so, the general
trend in Europe and elsewhere has been has been toward the creation of
ethnically-based states--"ethnostates". This trend did not end with the
close of World War II. In Europe, the war was followed by a forced
resettlement of peoples--mainly Germans--to create ethnically
homogeneous states. Indeed, the high point of ethnic homogenization in
Europe was in the two generations in the immediate aftermath of World
War II.

Muller writes:

McDonald cites Israel as discriminatory.

Here's a response to the essay's semi stupendous analysis:

Israeli Jews are not a single "ethnic" group.

They have intra-Jewish conflicts there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel

Two examples would show McDonald fans as seemingly oblivious & narrow-
minded re U.S.immigration laws.

If the U.S. forbade emigrant Orientals, then a large,
disproportionate percentage in science, technical fields, etal would
not exist, and there is no telling how backward U.S.society would be
now.

If the U.S. forbade India's highly skilled immigrants, there would
seemingly be a worse shortage and even more expensive medical
treatment situation than now.

Acknowledgment of reality: I have hang-ups about various peoples, as I
assume they would have about me, and I'd not characterize myself as
xenophobic-free.

I don't think that ethnic distribution specifics are necessary for the
emergence of "liberal democracies" but local ethnicities probably
played a role since travel after the decline of Rome was not great
enough for alot of mixing. "Institutional pluralism" and fighting
between groups for power is the main ingredient. The Roman empire
declined, the church took power, lords and kings emerged locally as a
force, kings councils arguing with kings, business interests get into
the mix, rights emerge as an issue, the populace learns of ways to get
rights, and then liberal or constitutional liberalism in the form of
social contracts can emerge.

The political theory of pluralism holds that political power in
society does not lie with the electorate but is distributed between a
wide number of groups. These groups may be Trade Unions, interest
groups, business organisations, and any of a multitude of formal and
informal coalitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_%%28political_theory%%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_%%28political_philosophy%%29

One diff is seen from the bottom up. History has been written by the
scribes in the pay of the warrior elite, so we dont often see what
really went on. But for instance, in "Life in a Medieval Village",
compiled from the Lord's court records going all the way back to the
12th century, presents us with a remarkable view of what life was like
for ordinary people.

This English midlands village was so out of the way that none of the
armies that repeatedly swept across Europe burned the records. In the
12th century the lord donated the place to an abby, so from then on,
the "lord" was the abbot. Yet we see the people still carried on with
pagan traditions like "jumping the broom" for year and a day contrcts
of mated life, at the end of which they could either renew or divy it
up.

Then too, there's the time when the Abbot tried to increase taxes, and
the whole village moved into the forest, in effect going on strike.
That was not possible in the Roman, Byzantine, Moslem, Mogol, or
Chinese empires. There simply was not enuf forest to sustain a long
strike.