Thought-provoking and clarifying article. Thank you!
I appreciated the illustrations of the Scandinavian in Arabia and the Australian Aboriginals in China. This reminded me of another post I saw earlier this year where the writer postulated a Swiss village being transported in full to Somalia and asked if the citizens of that village would adopt the Somalian lifestyle, poverty and hopelessness; or if the values they took within them would enable them - through Swiss hard work, intelligence, foresight, faith, loyalty and determination - to recreate something far more akin to Swiss standards, than Somali standards.
I also wondered what Dr Dailey thought about "prior rights" of Australian Aboriginals (and prior rights of other self-declared First Nations people in other countries) in Australia.
"The case of the nationhood of America, the United States, is unique." I strongly disagree. Not only do the Anglo-Saxon states of Australia and New Zealand share the status of nation "built by immigrants," but so do Argentina and Uruguay. Then there are some less-clearcut cases such as Cuba (with a massive Catalan and Castilian immigration in the 19th century), but the conclusion is inevitable: the nationhood of the US cannot be qualified as unique.
You also state that "true nations are peoples." This might be true, but the very concept of "people" needs a proper definition in the context of this article. For instance, one may regard the (real) French as a people that is currently being overrun by hordes of newcomers from places destroyed by NATO bombs and cheap EU agricultural exports. Those native Frenchmen are a mixture of original Bretons, Normans, Burgundians, Flemings, Provencals, Corsicans, Italians (in the lands taken from Piedmont in 1860) and all those other regional variants, mixed with heavy doses of later (1919-1970) immigrants from Italy, Poland and Portugal. In a strict sense, only the Frenchmen from Ile de France and the non-coastal districts north of the "langue d'oc" border.
Upon closer inspection therefore, the French and many if not most peoples that may appear homogenic, actually aren't.
I agree with the general thrust of the article but would like to make a few points.
The genome is a compound, not a monad. Thus, the genome alters. So too with nations. The genomic character of a given population varies over time, depending on exposure to disruptive events like wars, migratory flows and any number of eugenic/dysgenic influences.
At the moment Western peoples are undergoing accelerated change. The incidence of immigration, changes in family formation and fertility and developments in reproductive medicine are combining to create transformative conditions unlike anything seen previously.
The great danger comes from a gene shredding culture with a necrotic, anti-natalist, character, the loss of opportunity for many young people to marry and start families of their own and a malicious regime that has no interest in the genomic continuity of its own people or even their reproductive health.
in the case of say, the Scandinavian family, the last vestige of inheritance would wash away through intermarriage. The Jews were a nation without land now that they have land find they are not the same people as before. As for America, the melting pot has cooled, too late one thinks
Thought-provoking and clarifying article. Thank you!
I appreciated the illustrations of the Scandinavian in Arabia and the Australian Aboriginals in China. This reminded me of another post I saw earlier this year where the writer postulated a Swiss village being transported in full to Somalia and asked if the citizens of that village would adopt the Somalian lifestyle, poverty and hopelessness; or if the values they took within them would enable them - through Swiss hard work, intelligence, foresight, faith, loyalty and determination - to recreate something far more akin to Swiss standards, than Somali standards.
I also wondered what Dr Dailey thought about "prior rights" of Australian Aboriginals (and prior rights of other self-declared First Nations people in other countries) in Australia.
I look forward to Part 2.
Fabulous writing I must read again when the house has fallen asleep
"The case of the nationhood of America, the United States, is unique." I strongly disagree. Not only do the Anglo-Saxon states of Australia and New Zealand share the status of nation "built by immigrants," but so do Argentina and Uruguay. Then there are some less-clearcut cases such as Cuba (with a massive Catalan and Castilian immigration in the 19th century), but the conclusion is inevitable: the nationhood of the US cannot be qualified as unique.
You also state that "true nations are peoples." This might be true, but the very concept of "people" needs a proper definition in the context of this article. For instance, one may regard the (real) French as a people that is currently being overrun by hordes of newcomers from places destroyed by NATO bombs and cheap EU agricultural exports. Those native Frenchmen are a mixture of original Bretons, Normans, Burgundians, Flemings, Provencals, Corsicans, Italians (in the lands taken from Piedmont in 1860) and all those other regional variants, mixed with heavy doses of later (1919-1970) immigrants from Italy, Poland and Portugal. In a strict sense, only the Frenchmen from Ile de France and the non-coastal districts north of the "langue d'oc" border.
Upon closer inspection therefore, the French and many if not most peoples that may appear homogenic, actually aren't.
I was thinking along the same line
I agree with the general thrust of the article but would like to make a few points.
The genome is a compound, not a monad. Thus, the genome alters. So too with nations. The genomic character of a given population varies over time, depending on exposure to disruptive events like wars, migratory flows and any number of eugenic/dysgenic influences.
At the moment Western peoples are undergoing accelerated change. The incidence of immigration, changes in family formation and fertility and developments in reproductive medicine are combining to create transformative conditions unlike anything seen previously.
The great danger comes from a gene shredding culture with a necrotic, anti-natalist, character, the loss of opportunity for many young people to marry and start families of their own and a malicious regime that has no interest in the genomic continuity of its own people or even their reproductive health.
In this regard, what about the Vedic Aryans who moved from Eurasian Steppes to India thousand years ago? Are the still Eurasian instead of Indians?
in the case of say, the Scandinavian family, the last vestige of inheritance would wash away through intermarriage. The Jews were a nation without land now that they have land find they are not the same people as before. As for America, the melting pot has cooled, too late one thinks