>>161652I'm going to try to answer you earnestly here; I actually think traditional culture is nice. I like folk festivals and dances (even though I'm a terrible dancer), and continuation of traditional dress and music and art and pride and celebration of these things. I think that there is lots of history to be celebrated. You say you're Dutch with a bit of Welsh? Why not learn about the history of the Netherlands and Wales, and the old traditions from these places, if you haven't?
>Why are we not allowed to have homogeneous culture?This is a very different question for the US than it is for Europe. The Americas were never actually "white," which is ironic because "whiteness" as a concept was essentially invented and applied in practice so that colonial elites could keep control of the poor European colonial servants who kept revolting alongside enslaved Africans because their conditions were so bad. By giving the European servants and colonists, no matter how poor, certain formal privileges above the "blacks," the wealthy masters were able to lessen the size and extent of revolts, and give the "whites" something to lose if they
did continue to revolt alongside the "blacks."
Despite this, American culture has never really been "white." It's always been a mixture, at times a very clumsy mixture, of various European folk traditions with bits and pieces of pinched American Indian culture, tradition, and folklore, and (especially in the US) a lot of black cultural and artistic influence. "Black" culture itself was a mixture of European culture and customs (various specific kinds - Scottish & British, French, Irish, Spanish, etc.) with remnants of African folk traditions (with connections alternately to Islam and to traditional non-Abrahamic religions) filtered for many years (particularly, but not exclusively, in the US) through the material conditions of slavery, servitude, and entrenched poverty.
American culture without national pluralism can't really exist. An actual attempt at this would be best represented by historic movements to keep Irish and Italians out of the US, IE a definition of US nationalism which was based around Anglo Protestant identity. This in itself was always sort of fraudulent, and it would certainly be fraudulent today. American culture is a mishmash.
I don't believe that European countries (a "country" meaning a place like Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, etc.) shouldn't be "allowed" to revolve around a particular culture, or group of cultures. For a place like the Russian Federation, that's basically impossible (look at the size of it - there are many, many cultures and traditions within it), and for the US it's even less practical. With this all said, Europe has a problem with waging imperial wars; the US has an even greater problem with these. In fact, the US more-or-less dictates today's EU foreign policy. If European "leaders" weren't so busy destroying the lives, homes, and economies of millions people around western Asia and northern Africa, at the behest of the United States, then there would be far less migration, both within west Asia (to Turkey, Lebanon, etc.) and beyond it. This isn't even a moral critique alone; anyone who doesn't want to create mass migration cannot possibly justify participating in unprovoked wars and economic strangulation of far away countries with different cultures.
>Jews, Arabs, Hispa's, Asians, All of these people are allowed to have a culturally homogeneous society,2/4 of those groups are largely "white" in the context of the US. Jews in particular were white-coded for most of US history, coming mostly from Germany and eastern Europe, but simply being Jewish. They were eligible to be full citizens, own slaves, and do you know who the Secretary of State of the Confederate States of America was? His name was Judah P. Benjamin.
In the context of zionism, this isn't so true, as zionism originated with ashkenazim but, in its current incarnation, is not exclusive to them (IE is not exclusive to European Jews); so zionism is an ideology of Jewish supremacy across the vaguely defined (but insular) Jewish religious, cultural, pseudo-ethnic group. To be completely clear, it shouldn't exist, and there is nothing which gives a bunch of Germans, Poles, Ethiopians, British, French, and Americans a right to colonize the Levant, kick out the inhabitants, and run an apartheid state just because they had a grandma who was a member of a particular religion. It is an ideology reminiscent of Nazism and you're not wrong to think so if that's what you're suggesting.
The term "Hispanic" typically means white descendants of Spanish (or, rudely, Portuguese) people today. "Latino" is the term for mestizos and Spanish-or-Portuguese-speaking brown people descended from conquered American Indians/Indigenous tribes. Of course, if you look at Latin America, or even Spain itself, you'll find that these societies actually
aren't so culturally homogenous, and it's not even a
new thing.
"Arab" constitutes a bunch of cultures, and can't really be whittled down to a racial group
per se either. The single big uniting Arab trait is speaking Arabic, there are Saudi Arabians who are as dark as central Africans, and there are Syrians who just look like southern Europeans.
Also Arabs are Asian.And "Asians!" That's a group so broad that it includes Arabs! Asians don't even have a single language to unite around, let alone a single religion or appearance! Even China alone has multiple languages!
>I'm ok with immigration, but, there should not be more immigrants that a native populationIf you believe this, then your first gripe should be with the US government for waging economic warfare against most of the world's population, and for bombing the shit out of countries far away. The US government, including its most "anti-immigrant" political demagogues, uses "outsourced" labor (in other countries), and cheap undocumented migrant labor to skirt labor laws, and uses "anti-immigrant" sentiment as an intimidation tactic to keep migrant workers from getting too uppity. None of them are serious about actually stopping mass migration, or they would end the sanctions and end the wars and proxy wars. This year alone, the US has directly bombed 8 countries, including Ecuador and Venezuela. The US has abducted the President of Venezuela, and is waging war in Haiti (where the US
also abducted the President under Biden) via Blackwater mercenaries. The US government actively destroys nations and displaces millions, and everyone with power is aware that those millions have to go
somewhere.>>161656>Swastikas are not inherently nazi. Its more a display of Greco-Roman aesthetics. Which are white.It didn't become "white" until long after the original Roman Empire fell. Greece and Rome were Greek and Roman - the Romans didn't conquer for
whiteness or for
Germany or anything like that (and they definitely didn't conquer for
Aryanism - the Aryans were like their least favorite guys!), they conquered for Rome, and the land they conquered included Egypt and parts of northern Africa. In terms of land incorporated into the Roman Empire, they actually didn't care very much about what color anyone's skin was, or even if they were Roman, and for significant periods in Roman history, Roman citizens were a minority within the Roman Empire. There wasn't really any disparity, that I know of, in how Romans treated Gauls vs. how Romans treated Egyptians; in fact, if anything, Rome seemed to respect the Egyptians more.
>It's part of European culture.The symbol actually appears in a lot of cultures. Surely there's one particular usage which is attracting your attention to it, here.
>>161652