> Taking off on the Lind/nationalism thread, here's the end of Michael Lind's
> review of Jamie Galbraith's new book, Created Unequal. At the beginning of
> the excerpt, Lind seems to be arguing that you need ethnic purity to have
> social democracy, but by the end is arguing against multiculturalism in the
> interests of an "egalitarian nationalism." Is his argument really with
> "mutlculturalism," or ethnic diversity itself? If whites won't pay for a
> redistribution that would disproportionately benefit blacks - and isn't
> that what this all boils down to? - then how do you finesse this? How can
> you have the kind of unity he wants without the "cosmopolitanism" he thinks
> is impossible? At least racist nationalists are consistent.
>
> Doug
Not to extol our Anglo forbears but I recall in the heyday of British Imperialism one Benjamin Disreali a Levantine Jew was a popular imperial Prime Minister and managed to "rule" a country made up of foreigners i.e. the ever warring "tribes", which call themselves the Scots, the Welch the Anglos, the Irish... My impression is that a fairly successful labor movement was created under these unfavorable circumstances of "multiculturalism". While when I was in England briefly my undiscerning eyes did not see much difference between a Brit, a Scotsman, and Irishman and a Welshman, I've been told that these cultural differences are immense and important. Doug, if I wanted to finesse this I would argue that cultural homogeneity was not necessary even though racist nationalism is conceivably useful in creating solidarity. There are other cases I know of where labor solidarity overcame cultural bigotry which is related to Lind's position. The piece you quoted seems to indicate that Lind was arguing from cultural and historical ignorance in addition to his own bigotry.
This being said, it would be useful to understand the forces that create ethnic solidarity and the alternative forces which create multicultural solidarity. I don't think anybody would deny that social homogeneity makes it easier to obtain and maintain social democracy. Its hard to see why cosmopolitanism is impossible however given it happens again and again in human history, even though it may not be the preferred mode of human interaction.
--mike -- Michael Cohen mike at cns.bu.edu Work: 677 Beacon, Street, Rm313 Boston, Mass 02115 Home: 25 Stearns Rd, #3 Brookline, Mass 02146 Tel-Work: 617-353-9484 Tel-Home:617-734-8828 Tel-FAX:617-353-7755