0 comment Tuesday, October 14, 2014 | admin
There has been an ongoing discussion on various blogs about the role (or the scarcity) of women in ethnonationalist or WN groups.
This article by Michael J. Polignano from TOQ was one of the early ones on the topic that I recall seeing, back in 2010.
There have been recent discussions on other blogs.
The discussions seem to go in circles, whenever this topic comes up.
I have blogged now and again about the subject too. It seems to be an undisputed fact that women are a distinct minority among ethnonationalists and WNs. It also seems to be true that women are less likely to be politically conservative, tending to vote Democratic in larger numbers.
So while some have suggested in these discussions that women have more to lose by identifying with a marginalized and politically incorrect viewpoint, it seems that even in the realm of 'mainstream' politics women are more likely to take the liberal side. I've said, as many people have, that women are simply more likely to make decisions based on feeling than on an intellectual or detached approach. As with any such statement, there are always exceptions to the rule.
With the more hard-line political viewpoints, most of the individuals who identify with these lines of thought are people who are either alienated (understandably, in most cases) from the mainstream, or in some cases just contrarian types who want to go against the consensus. This is also true across the spectrum with various dissenting political viewpoints.
But many on our side are simply unreconstructed 'old Americans', people who have not bowed the knee to the PC Baal. We represent the old America; we are not the aberration; the post-modern, post-racial, post-Americans are.
Some women in the discussions linked above blame 'misogynistic' men among the WNs for the lack of women in the ranks. I think it works both ways; there are women even on the realist right who react in a knee-jerk feminist way to any criticism of women, and that keeps the cycle of misunderstanding going.
Many people have said that the natural role of woman is to mother children and to tend the home. That's true, but in today's society in which many people never marry at all, and many married couples are childless, where does that leave these women? In olden times, unmarried women past a certain age were called 'old maids' or spinsters, and usually remained at home with aging parents or helped to bring up nieces and nephews, or to do charitable work if they had the leisure. But that is not an option in our day. The fact that many women are not in traditional roles in the home is not just due to feminism. The decay and disintegration of the family, thanks in large part to the machinations of the left, is a big factor in displacing women from the traditional role.
And even if women are in the traditional domestic role, does this mean they are necessarily going to hold bleeding-heart liberal ideas about racial issues, immigration, and so on? I don't think there is any reason to believe that the domestic role makes women more soft-hearted or soft-headed about the crises in the larger world.
Some also say that women were never as 'racially aware' as men are. I think that's an exaggeration. I remember in my own childhood that even my Yankee-born mother and her female family members were very much racially realistic. They were genteel about it, but also very frank. All my older female family members on the Southern side of the family, likewise, and they were even more blunt on these matters. I don't know if younger people today are cognizant of this. So I don't believe that there is a lack of the 'gene' or the tendency to ethnocentrism. If anything, the instinctive female gene for preservation of family and home inclines her (or at least used to) to ethnoloyalty and the 'us vs. them' mentality.
We Americans have all heard the stories of how the old frontier women defended home and hearth (with firearms, if necessary) when the menfolk were away. In the South, there are similar stories of the War Between the States when women and servants had to defend themselves and their property against marauding Yankees.
Unfortunately it may be that women are more susceptible to indoctrination, especially that which is delivered by 'entertainment', anything which plays on feminine sympathies. For example Oprah and her soap-opera morality plays about abused victims or oppressed minorities, or movies which have some sentimental feel-good message about 'understanding' and tolerance.
The discussion at OD as well as at TOQ included suggestions for a website on nationalist issues for women, from a woman's point of view, or even a 'place where women can talk.'
There was also mention of the need for a blog or website where women's traditional concerns (home, family, childrearing) would be the focus.
This may be the right approach, although would it be enough to counteract the mass media propaganda directed at women?
Some women do respond to intellectual arguments and enjoy discussing ideas, but unfortunately I've met many women with whom one can't have any kind of rational discussion, and their eyes glaze over when you try to talk about ideas of any kind, regardless of whether they are politically incorrect or whether they 'safe' ideas. Most of the women I know of who fit this category also voted Democrat in the last election, and they can't even tell you why. If they try, their answers make little sense.
I am not being a "female misogynist'' here, just a realist.
Perhaps the female-oriented WN or ethnopatriot blog could work; I think it would be good to emphasize things of a positive nature like our cherished traditions, culture, music, folklore, family issues/childrearing, and so on. I've done a little of that on this blog, though I also include historical notes and trivia, and reminders of our origins and identity.
I don't know if having a group blog with all women would work well or not; at this point I think there might not be enough of a demand for such a site, and I don't know of that many female ethnonationalists who would be willing to start such a blog. I think the audience is spread pretty thin as it is. Maybe the time will come when such a thing would find a ready audience; I am not sure that this is the time. We are still at a point where our ideas, though they represent traditional attitudes, are considered taboo, but perhaps the pendulum will swing in due time in our direction.
I think a good first step would be to try to bring about a cease-fire between the sexes.
This article by Michael J. Polignano from TOQ was one of the early ones on the topic that I recall seeing, back in 2010.
There have been recent discussions on other blogs.
The discussions seem to go in circles, whenever this topic comes up.
I have blogged now and again about the subject too. It seems to be an undisputed fact that women are a distinct minority among ethnonationalists and WNs. It also seems to be true that women are less likely to be politically conservative, tending to vote Democratic in larger numbers.
So while some have suggested in these discussions that women have more to lose by identifying with a marginalized and politically incorrect viewpoint, it seems that even in the realm of 'mainstream' politics women are more likely to take the liberal side. I've said, as many people have, that women are simply more likely to make decisions based on feeling than on an intellectual or detached approach. As with any such statement, there are always exceptions to the rule.
With the more hard-line political viewpoints, most of the individuals who identify with these lines of thought are people who are either alienated (understandably, in most cases) from the mainstream, or in some cases just contrarian types who want to go against the consensus. This is also true across the spectrum with various dissenting political viewpoints.
But many on our side are simply unreconstructed 'old Americans', people who have not bowed the knee to the PC Baal. We represent the old America; we are not the aberration; the post-modern, post-racial, post-Americans are.
Some women in the discussions linked above blame 'misogynistic' men among the WNs for the lack of women in the ranks. I think it works both ways; there are women even on the realist right who react in a knee-jerk feminist way to any criticism of women, and that keeps the cycle of misunderstanding going.
Many people have said that the natural role of woman is to mother children and to tend the home. That's true, but in today's society in which many people never marry at all, and many married couples are childless, where does that leave these women? In olden times, unmarried women past a certain age were called 'old maids' or spinsters, and usually remained at home with aging parents or helped to bring up nieces and nephews, or to do charitable work if they had the leisure. But that is not an option in our day. The fact that many women are not in traditional roles in the home is not just due to feminism. The decay and disintegration of the family, thanks in large part to the machinations of the left, is a big factor in displacing women from the traditional role.
And even if women are in the traditional domestic role, does this mean they are necessarily going to hold bleeding-heart liberal ideas about racial issues, immigration, and so on? I don't think there is any reason to believe that the domestic role makes women more soft-hearted or soft-headed about the crises in the larger world.
Some also say that women were never as 'racially aware' as men are. I think that's an exaggeration. I remember in my own childhood that even my Yankee-born mother and her female family members were very much racially realistic. They were genteel about it, but also very frank. All my older female family members on the Southern side of the family, likewise, and they were even more blunt on these matters. I don't know if younger people today are cognizant of this. So I don't believe that there is a lack of the 'gene' or the tendency to ethnocentrism. If anything, the instinctive female gene for preservation of family and home inclines her (or at least used to) to ethnoloyalty and the 'us vs. them' mentality.
We Americans have all heard the stories of how the old frontier women defended home and hearth (with firearms, if necessary) when the menfolk were away. In the South, there are similar stories of the War Between the States when women and servants had to defend themselves and their property against marauding Yankees.
Unfortunately it may be that women are more susceptible to indoctrination, especially that which is delivered by 'entertainment', anything which plays on feminine sympathies. For example Oprah and her soap-opera morality plays about abused victims or oppressed minorities, or movies which have some sentimental feel-good message about 'understanding' and tolerance.
The discussion at OD as well as at TOQ included suggestions for a website on nationalist issues for women, from a woman's point of view, or even a 'place where women can talk.'
There was also mention of the need for a blog or website where women's traditional concerns (home, family, childrearing) would be the focus.
This may be the right approach, although would it be enough to counteract the mass media propaganda directed at women?
Some women do respond to intellectual arguments and enjoy discussing ideas, but unfortunately I've met many women with whom one can't have any kind of rational discussion, and their eyes glaze over when you try to talk about ideas of any kind, regardless of whether they are politically incorrect or whether they 'safe' ideas. Most of the women I know of who fit this category also voted Democrat in the last election, and they can't even tell you why. If they try, their answers make little sense.
I am not being a "female misogynist'' here, just a realist.
Perhaps the female-oriented WN or ethnopatriot blog could work; I think it would be good to emphasize things of a positive nature like our cherished traditions, culture, music, folklore, family issues/childrearing, and so on. I've done a little of that on this blog, though I also include historical notes and trivia, and reminders of our origins and identity.
I don't know if having a group blog with all women would work well or not; at this point I think there might not be enough of a demand for such a site, and I don't know of that many female ethnonationalists who would be willing to start such a blog. I think the audience is spread pretty thin as it is. Maybe the time will come when such a thing would find a ready audience; I am not sure that this is the time. We are still at a point where our ideas, though they represent traditional attitudes, are considered taboo, but perhaps the pendulum will swing in due time in our direction.
I think a good first step would be to try to bring about a cease-fire between the sexes.
Labels: Battle Of The Sexes, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Liberalism, Racial Consciousness
0 comment Monday, June 16, 2014 | admin
There's a discussion at Audacious Epigone about racial self-identification, by ethnic group, including a table showing the percentage of people from each group who consider race or ethnicity as one of the most important means of self-identification.
The results for minorities (including Asians, that ever-popular model minority) show that they have higher levels of racial self-identification, with Hispanics having the highest, and blacks next. Anyone surprised?
Guess which group is last?
British-descended Americans, with Scandinavian in the next-lowest category.
The people who identify strictly as 'Americans' are just a little lower in the rankings than the minorities, and this is not surprising, since many of those who call themselves simply 'American' are often Southron people and even when not from the South, tend to be the proud patriot types.
Others say that many of these who say they are 'just Americans' are in fact those stereotyped Scots-Irish or those of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman descent. The latter groups are usually of colonial stock, and their ties to the ''old country'' are so remote that they tend to think of themselves as Americans, with no hyphen.
My problem with studies like this (and I am no scientist, nor do I claim to be) is that I think most people's self-identification is hazy or inaccurate, with the exception of the later immigrant stock, those who have held to their European identity from, say, Ireland or Italy or Eastern Europe.
Many people who are mixed colonial stock/ethnic immigrant stock don't count their old-stock (usually English) ancestry because it's too remote, whereas they have heard stories of an immigrant great-grandfather -- hence they identify with that ethnicity, because it's the only one they know with certainty,
There are any number of charts and maps and census records which show America as being populated mostly by German-stock people, and that never seems credible to me. The dominance of English surnames or British Isles surnames seems, according to common sense, to indicate that there is quite a bit more British ancestry here than German.
Absent any real documentation of one's ancestry, many people are just guessing, or mentioning the only ethnicity in their background that they are aware of.
I've found in doing genealogy and communicating with many people about family history that many Americans seem to have ancestral equivalents of 'urban legends' or myths which they believe, but which are proven false when the research is done, and records examined. What I am saying is that relying on self-reporting is not a good way to determine who is who, or how many people of a given ethnicity there are in America.
Genealogy is becoming more popular, but many people still don't know their family history or lineage, except in the vaguest sense. I think this is a sad situation that contributes to White Americans' relatively low levels of racial/ethnic consciousness. If you don't know very much about who your forebears were, or how they came to this country, there's little basis for pride or racial consciousness. Neither is there a strong attachment to this country or your neighbor if you think of yourself as just a generic 'American' whose allegiance is to vague things like 'freedom' and 'democracy' rather than to a kin group or ancestral soil.
One thing that becomes very clear when you research your colonial-stock ancestry is that you find that you have many collateral relatives who are of Jamestown founding stock, or Massachusetts colonial descent. You learn just how many living Americans you are cousins to. We are not a nation of random, unconnected , rootless, individuals, but those of us who have been here for a few generations have unimagined connections to many Americans.
Of course, with the mass immigration now being engineered by our rulers, the connections will be broken down and we will truly become deracinated and isolated. That's the intention. The lack of cohesion is becoming painfully evident.
Until Americans either make an effort to learn their own family histories, and until the ''proposition nation'' and ''nation of immigrants'' propaganda weakens its hold, White Americans will be this deracinated and put-upon people who let others walk all over us, while we play genial nice guys with low self-respect.
The comments on the AE article bring up a number of popular notions, such as the idea that Protestantism contributes to a low racial consciousness while Catholicism does the opposite. Someone mentions that the northern European countries which were historically Protestant have the worst immigration problems. But it seems that historically Catholic countries (Spain, Ireland, Italy, and France) have their share of problems with immigration and multiculturalism, although the problem in Ireland is more recent.
One thing that seems always to be ignored in these attempts to link religion to low racial awareness is the fact that few people in Europe, relatively speaking, have a real Christian faith. Though these countries may still be called 'Protestant' or Catholic, they are in fact post-Christian. That fact has already been publicly acknowledged in the UK.
In all European countries (except perhaps for Eastern Europe) the Christian faith is more or less vestigial, with no widespread belief among the populations. Secularism and liberal/Marxist/leftist beliefs have displaced Christianity, or corrupted what is left of it into a parody of itself.
Does the individualism which is popularly said to characterize the northern Europeans, especially Anglo-Saxons, predispose them to be deracinated and hyperindividualistic? I would say these traits were much less common in the days when the Christian faith was still a living faith in Europe. Despite the popular idea that communism or leftism are communally oriented and anti-individualistic, I think there is a paradox there. While many leftists emphasize the ''community'' and 'the people'' at least nominally, the mindset is at least as much influenced by philosophical ideas gleaned from people like Nietzsche and Sartre, which focus on the individual. The average liberal or leftist believes he is a blank slate on which he creates himself. Having an ethnic or racial identity is too constricting, too limiting. The liberal likes to believe he is his own creation, and that any ascribed identity is false or imprisoning. And besides, race is a social construct, and we all bleed red, and there's only one race, etc. etc.
If you ask me, much of what is wrong with the West comes from those toxic ideas, rather than from a feeble and hollowed-out Christianity.
I will never understand why so many keep looking to a long-abandoned religion to explain the attitudes of today's muddled and addled White liberals. Christianity is anathema to them; they probably grew up in secular, or even anti-Christian homes, and today's Western liberals have certainly been indoctrinated with secular dogmas and media propaganda. America still has some faithful Christians, but we can see the rot setting in even in some traditionally conservative churches.
Why then are northern European-descended people so lacking in racial consciousness? The subject has been discussed many times, and the answer is not clear-cut. There's no single answer.
Perhaps one seldom-mentioned possibility is that for a long while in the early days of this republic, the Anglo-Saxons who formed the core of the population, and the majority, were unselfconscious because there was little ''diversity''; the groups who were here at the beginning, such as English, Scots, Dutch, and some Germans, were all close kin, and all assimilated to Anglo-Saxon ways. There was no need for forming a strong identity in competition with others who opposed the majority.
In fact, up until the mass immigration of the Ellis Island era, Americans of Anglo descent were the dominant group with no one to seriously challenge their power. Of course that all changed in the last 60 years or so, and I think many old-stock Americans have only now begun to notice, so secure did they feel in control of this country.
We can argue about whether there is some genetic tendency (or flaw, really) among Anglo-Saxons that makes them more individualist and less racially conscious, However I would say there isn't much evidence of that. Anglo-Saxons, wherever they've lived, used to have a very strong and assertive identity which enabled them to conquer and dominate just about wherever they went. They also had good group cohesion in an ethnic and racial sense when they settled this country, else there would have been widespread mixing with other races, as in Latin America. It looks as though that stereotype is turned on its head, as the conquistadores left mixed offspring everywhere they went, and not just here and there, while the English preserved their own people and customs and faith when they came here.
It's also noteworthy that the English colonists brought families with them when they crossed the Atlantic; they intended to found communities here, and not just to explore or plunder. Jamestown at first had no women, but earlier efforts at settling Virginia did include women. But Jamestown eventually included women who came over from England to marry the colonists.
So the English and the Dutch and the Huguenots tended to bring women and children with them to America, and to found families and communities, while the supposedly more family-oriented Southern Europeans did not do so when they came here, for the most part.
My point is, the idea of English 'Protestant' hyper-individualism is exaggerated. So much of what is said in these discussions is based on cliche and stereotype. Sure, stereotypes have a basis in fact, but in this case, so much of what is said about the founding stock of this country is based on an oversimplified image of Englishmen or Anglo-Saxons.
In fact, I'd say many Americans know too little about the country and people which in essence created America. And this won't change as long as so many of the real-life ''Albion's seed'' don't even know who they are, and are content not to know.
Part of the mission of this blog, since the beginning, has been to awaken some of the dormant racial memory of who we are, where we came from, and then to decide where we are going.
So I will keep returning to this subject of the ''vanishing American', especially the neglected and overlooked and stereotyped Anglo-American.
The results for minorities (including Asians, that ever-popular model minority) show that they have higher levels of racial self-identification, with Hispanics having the highest, and blacks next. Anyone surprised?
Guess which group is last?
British-descended Americans, with Scandinavian in the next-lowest category.
The people who identify strictly as 'Americans' are just a little lower in the rankings than the minorities, and this is not surprising, since many of those who call themselves simply 'American' are often Southron people and even when not from the South, tend to be the proud patriot types.
Others say that many of these who say they are 'just Americans' are in fact those stereotyped Scots-Irish or those of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman descent. The latter groups are usually of colonial stock, and their ties to the ''old country'' are so remote that they tend to think of themselves as Americans, with no hyphen.
My problem with studies like this (and I am no scientist, nor do I claim to be) is that I think most people's self-identification is hazy or inaccurate, with the exception of the later immigrant stock, those who have held to their European identity from, say, Ireland or Italy or Eastern Europe.
Many people who are mixed colonial stock/ethnic immigrant stock don't count their old-stock (usually English) ancestry because it's too remote, whereas they have heard stories of an immigrant great-grandfather -- hence they identify with that ethnicity, because it's the only one they know with certainty,
There are any number of charts and maps and census records which show America as being populated mostly by German-stock people, and that never seems credible to me. The dominance of English surnames or British Isles surnames seems, according to common sense, to indicate that there is quite a bit more British ancestry here than German.
Absent any real documentation of one's ancestry, many people are just guessing, or mentioning the only ethnicity in their background that they are aware of.
I've found in doing genealogy and communicating with many people about family history that many Americans seem to have ancestral equivalents of 'urban legends' or myths which they believe, but which are proven false when the research is done, and records examined. What I am saying is that relying on self-reporting is not a good way to determine who is who, or how many people of a given ethnicity there are in America.
Genealogy is becoming more popular, but many people still don't know their family history or lineage, except in the vaguest sense. I think this is a sad situation that contributes to White Americans' relatively low levels of racial/ethnic consciousness. If you don't know very much about who your forebears were, or how they came to this country, there's little basis for pride or racial consciousness. Neither is there a strong attachment to this country or your neighbor if you think of yourself as just a generic 'American' whose allegiance is to vague things like 'freedom' and 'democracy' rather than to a kin group or ancestral soil.
One thing that becomes very clear when you research your colonial-stock ancestry is that you find that you have many collateral relatives who are of Jamestown founding stock, or Massachusetts colonial descent. You learn just how many living Americans you are cousins to. We are not a nation of random, unconnected , rootless, individuals, but those of us who have been here for a few generations have unimagined connections to many Americans.
Of course, with the mass immigration now being engineered by our rulers, the connections will be broken down and we will truly become deracinated and isolated. That's the intention. The lack of cohesion is becoming painfully evident.
Until Americans either make an effort to learn their own family histories, and until the ''proposition nation'' and ''nation of immigrants'' propaganda weakens its hold, White Americans will be this deracinated and put-upon people who let others walk all over us, while we play genial nice guys with low self-respect.
The comments on the AE article bring up a number of popular notions, such as the idea that Protestantism contributes to a low racial consciousness while Catholicism does the opposite. Someone mentions that the northern European countries which were historically Protestant have the worst immigration problems. But it seems that historically Catholic countries (Spain, Ireland, Italy, and France) have their share of problems with immigration and multiculturalism, although the problem in Ireland is more recent.
One thing that seems always to be ignored in these attempts to link religion to low racial awareness is the fact that few people in Europe, relatively speaking, have a real Christian faith. Though these countries may still be called 'Protestant' or Catholic, they are in fact post-Christian. That fact has already been publicly acknowledged in the UK.
In all European countries (except perhaps for Eastern Europe) the Christian faith is more or less vestigial, with no widespread belief among the populations. Secularism and liberal/Marxist/leftist beliefs have displaced Christianity, or corrupted what is left of it into a parody of itself.
Does the individualism which is popularly said to characterize the northern Europeans, especially Anglo-Saxons, predispose them to be deracinated and hyperindividualistic? I would say these traits were much less common in the days when the Christian faith was still a living faith in Europe. Despite the popular idea that communism or leftism are communally oriented and anti-individualistic, I think there is a paradox there. While many leftists emphasize the ''community'' and 'the people'' at least nominally, the mindset is at least as much influenced by philosophical ideas gleaned from people like Nietzsche and Sartre, which focus on the individual. The average liberal or leftist believes he is a blank slate on which he creates himself. Having an ethnic or racial identity is too constricting, too limiting. The liberal likes to believe he is his own creation, and that any ascribed identity is false or imprisoning. And besides, race is a social construct, and we all bleed red, and there's only one race, etc. etc.
If you ask me, much of what is wrong with the West comes from those toxic ideas, rather than from a feeble and hollowed-out Christianity.
I will never understand why so many keep looking to a long-abandoned religion to explain the attitudes of today's muddled and addled White liberals. Christianity is anathema to them; they probably grew up in secular, or even anti-Christian homes, and today's Western liberals have certainly been indoctrinated with secular dogmas and media propaganda. America still has some faithful Christians, but we can see the rot setting in even in some traditionally conservative churches.
Why then are northern European-descended people so lacking in racial consciousness? The subject has been discussed many times, and the answer is not clear-cut. There's no single answer.
Perhaps one seldom-mentioned possibility is that for a long while in the early days of this republic, the Anglo-Saxons who formed the core of the population, and the majority, were unselfconscious because there was little ''diversity''; the groups who were here at the beginning, such as English, Scots, Dutch, and some Germans, were all close kin, and all assimilated to Anglo-Saxon ways. There was no need for forming a strong identity in competition with others who opposed the majority.
In fact, up until the mass immigration of the Ellis Island era, Americans of Anglo descent were the dominant group with no one to seriously challenge their power. Of course that all changed in the last 60 years or so, and I think many old-stock Americans have only now begun to notice, so secure did they feel in control of this country.
We can argue about whether there is some genetic tendency (or flaw, really) among Anglo-Saxons that makes them more individualist and less racially conscious, However I would say there isn't much evidence of that. Anglo-Saxons, wherever they've lived, used to have a very strong and assertive identity which enabled them to conquer and dominate just about wherever they went. They also had good group cohesion in an ethnic and racial sense when they settled this country, else there would have been widespread mixing with other races, as in Latin America. It looks as though that stereotype is turned on its head, as the conquistadores left mixed offspring everywhere they went, and not just here and there, while the English preserved their own people and customs and faith when they came here.
It's also noteworthy that the English colonists brought families with them when they crossed the Atlantic; they intended to found communities here, and not just to explore or plunder. Jamestown at first had no women, but earlier efforts at settling Virginia did include women. But Jamestown eventually included women who came over from England to marry the colonists.
So the English and the Dutch and the Huguenots tended to bring women and children with them to America, and to found families and communities, while the supposedly more family-oriented Southern Europeans did not do so when they came here, for the most part.
My point is, the idea of English 'Protestant' hyper-individualism is exaggerated. So much of what is said in these discussions is based on cliche and stereotype. Sure, stereotypes have a basis in fact, but in this case, so much of what is said about the founding stock of this country is based on an oversimplified image of Englishmen or Anglo-Saxons.
In fact, I'd say many Americans know too little about the country and people which in essence created America. And this won't change as long as so many of the real-life ''Albion's seed'' don't even know who they are, and are content not to know.
Part of the mission of this blog, since the beginning, has been to awaken some of the dormant racial memory of who we are, where we came from, and then to decide where we are going.
So I will keep returning to this subject of the ''vanishing American', especially the neglected and overlooked and stereotyped Anglo-American.
Labels: American Identity, Anglo-Americans, Ethnocentrism, Ethnonationalism, Individualism, Liberalism, National Memory, National Question, Racial Consciousness