Hacker News Reader

Comment by us-merul | Hacker News Reader

From the linked DHH writing: “There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.”

To clarify, who are the Brits exactly? Do the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh count, and who gets to say that? Also, the Ainu were there before the Japanese.

View on HN

Yeah, I do think there are some interesting questions in this area, but the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world, and has led to countless civil wars. The most obvious one being “Israel is primarily a country for Israelis.”

But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.

How is it racist? Native Brits are anyone who was born there. This is more about culture than race.

DHH makes it about race?

>That was then. Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.

Unambiguously referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London, 2001 census 60% of London was white British, 36% in 2021.

The Wikipedia page lumps together immigrant Asians with native born Asians. cf. "Asian or Asian British" as 20.8%. Same for Blacks.

Do we know the actual breakdown?

That’s the point—- definitions of culture and identity can change over time. Since I’m from the US, I don’t have much more to say about lands belonging to people, but my comment about Japan is meant to highlight problems with the idea of islands being naturally “for” people.

A stable country is a country that is primarily a country of X. What constitutes X may change over time, but it works fine if it is slow and gradual.

> But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.

If it is not gradual and you have Y and Z beside X, is when trouble start. Middle East and lot of African countries is the example of this. Those people where unable to live together (too many cultural differences) in their home country, why should be different in Europe, where cultural differences will be even higher ?

One of the core tenets of liberalism is that multi cultural societies and nations are just as good as mono cultural ones. what are you trying to imply here with the africa and middle eastern examples

Oh that’s a core tenet? Since when? Did Adam Smith write about that? John Locke? Thomas Paine? Heck I’ll even take a Milton Friedman citation if you have one.

Probably since about early 1990s. Maybe I should say civic nationalism instead of multiculturalism but I think most liberals would reject the idea that ethnicity or heritage were important in determining nationality.

this is categorically different from multiculturalism. all cultures are not equal, and some are antithetical to liberal values. a diversity of people is good, but as much as possible society should prefer a common banner and shared loyalty, or view of civic duty. America has for a long time shown that there can be a combination of national identity and ethnic and religious diversity.

to that end, i think arguments for or against different degrees of immigration are valid and worth engaging (as opposed to shunning under false labels).

> the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world

That’s true in some parts of the world. But the opposite idea — that the people who’ve lived somewhere for thousands of years have no moral claim to their inheritance over the people who just arrived — has been equally destructive in other parts.

> one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.

That’s a bad thing, is it? Is diversity not their strength?

I mean, I’m not afraid of nuance, diversity felt less like a strength to a lot of Anericans in the 1850’s too

Good point. British people don't really exist. What are even English or Scottish people? French people? European people? Where does it start, where does it end? We don't know.

We don't know what a white person is. No idea, no clue. Where could we even start?

Funnily enough, though, those considerations never seem to apply to Palestinians, native Americans, indigenous Australians, etc. There is only a certain group that is somehow impossible to define precisely, yet is the primary target of those considerations.

Great Britain is the big island next to Ireland. So the Scots, Welsh and English are British.

Most Irish people would not take kindly to be called British, but then there’s Northern Ireland with all its complexities.

That’s my point. There’s not really a singular “Brit” unless you designate one group to decide, and various other groups may also want to be considered British or not. Since I’m from the US, I won’t say more, because I’m sure there’s more to this I’m missing.

I don’t really think pedantry about terms changes the overall point.

Most Scots and Cymry do not identify as British, and do not like it when you refer to them as British.

I'm Scots, not British. Roughly 50% of us support independence from the UK.

A majority of people in North West England has Irish ancestry. Are those people not British?

This is a big conflict in modern liberalism and democracy. If the british people vote for an ethnostate what are we supposed to do. subvert multicultural ideas? or subvert democracy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com