Why does it seem that Northwest Europeans are less ethnocentric?
My hypothesis, in contrast to MacDonald’s thesis about “primordialist individualism,” is something I have written about before, and will summarize again here. Northwest Europe is that part of Europe most geographically distant from non-Europe. Therefore, in the ethnogenesis of Northwest European ethnies, and throughout most of the histories of those peoples, group conflicts were almost always with other Europeans; in contrast, in the ethnogenesis and histories of Southern and Eastern European ethnies, conflicts occurred not only with other Europeans but frequently with Afro-Asiatic, non-European peoples. Thus, Northwest European ethnoracial evolution and ethnocultural identity occurred in the context of viewing other Europeans as “the other,” while for Southern and Eastern Europeans, group evolution and identity occurred primarily in the context of Afro-Asiatic aliens, peoples from other continents, other races, and other civilizations, as “the other.”
This can explain why Northwest Europeans tend to reserve their greatest hostility toward other Europeans while oozing with the milk of human kindness toward Coloreds, while Southern and Eastern Europeans tend to have, relatively speaking, a less sanguine view of the World of Color. This explanation seems to be more robust than MacDonald’s, which struggles to explain why “individualistic” Scandinavians are actually "Law of Jante" conformist collectivists. In my hypothesis, individualism vs. collectivism is secondary; instead, the main question is: Against what outgroup has been the historical force of selective pressure?
So, it is not so much that Northwest European are much less ethnocentric, but that whatever ethnocentrism they do have usually targets other Europeans (as White ethnics in Der Movement are well aware), and does not focus too much on Coloreds - the latter being the real problem in White nations and the problem against which Northwest Europeans seemingly cannot generate much resistance to. Now, other Europeans are, for the most part, not really resisting either, but here we are talking about relative degrees of resistance. All Europeans are not doing well, but some are worse than others.
Now, it is possible that both hypotheses are at work. It is possible that MacDonald's thesis has some limited validity (*) with respect to particular aspects of group behavior, and when combined with my thesis, which is more robust in its applicability, we observe the differences in group behavior discussed. But even with these various mechanisms possibly working in synergy, the differences in group behavior are not as great as some would believe. Last I looked, Southern Europe was being flooded with immigrants and migrants; the differences in group behavior seem more of a gentle cline rather than a sharp disjunctive barrier. And there are characteristics to those differences that are better explained by my thesis, since the limited ethnocentrism of Northwest Europeans is to a large degree aimed at other Europeans (e.g., White Britons seem more disturbed about "Polish plumbers" than by "commonwealth immigration" of Negroes and South Asians), while the limited ethnocentrism of Southern and Eastern Europeans is aimed mostly at non-Europeans. The problem with Northwest Europeans seems less a lack of ethnocentrism, but instead a combination of xenophilia toward Coloreds combined with misplaced ethnocentrism against other Europeans.
*The manifest failures of MacDonald's thesis has been explored here previously, repeatedly, in detail. To summarize briefly, it ignores data demonstrating that individualism (as measured by papers in the literature) among European ethnies allegedly more collectivist is actually approximately the same (or greater) than that of ethnies allegedly highly individualistic, that the allegedly highly individualistic Scandinavians actually exhibit extreme "Law of Jante" collectivist conformity (causing one sycophant to write an incoherent piece trying to explain how extreme individualism leads to extreme collectivist conformity - essentially making MacDonald's theory an untestable hypothesis, since every case of collectivism where individualism is expected can be explained away by this "mechanism," hence making MacDonald's thesis unfalsifiable), the interpretation of genetic data and ancient identity are refuted by the literature including archaeogenetics, and it greatly inflates possible small differences that do exist into greater behavioral gulfs that are not actually observed in reality. It should be noted that the greatest example of collectivist action among Europeans in recent memory has been German National Socialism. One can find no more ethnocentric people than modern day Nordicists - and given that the hostility of that group is mostly aimed at non-Nordic Europeans, than would support my thesis more than MacDonald's. I would also like to point out, as has been done here before, that amoral familism is not collectivism, at least not at the level of the national ethny, and in fact opposes ethnic collectivism. Amoral familism seems to be an aberrant form of individualism that extends to the family, but which views everything outside of the family as "the other"- including co-ethnics. Indeed, the problems of ethnies characterized by amoral familism are to a large extent due to a failure to invest in common social goods, and a complete lack of collective ethnic social action. Instead of being atomized individuals, amoral familism is atomized families.
Comments
Post a Comment