most obvious difference is that there is no black nation, nornLatino nation, no Indian nation. Indians and Latinos are historicallyrnmore divided among themselves than they are unitedrnagainst the Anglos. Latinos have language and religion in common,rnbut even setting apart the differences between Spanishrnand Indians, there is little to unite Cubans, Mexicans, andrnPuerto Ricans except their colonial past, which is wh’, I suppose,rnthe legal definition of “Hispanic” continues to makernsense even for those who have not a drop of the blood of thernconquistadors.rnJust as significant, perhaps, is the lack of a definable territory.rnThe ethnic map of Austria-Hungary was a jumble, but eachrnlittle tribe—Croats, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Serbs—had itsrnown map showing the empire of the Mohocks “at its greatestrnextent.” They still do. Although their territorial ambitionsrnwere mutually exclusive, each nation had a core homeland forrnwhich it eventually settled.rnWith one or two exceptions, our own racial nationalists showrnlittle interest in territory. Some Mexican militants, it is true,rnspeak of creating the nation of Aztlan out of the Southwest,rnand the Nation of Islam has a Utopian plan for taking over severalrnSouthern states. (Say “Hey” to Bubba for me when you getrnto the Delta. On second thought, maybe it would be wiser tornconcentrate on some state like Massachusetts where the nativesrnare unarmed.) But these territorial dreams are not part of thernpolitical landscape. In calling themselves “Latinos,” “Hispan-rnOrchard in Bloomrnby Timothy MurphyrnThese seven hundred treesrnpillar a pagan church,rna basilica for beesrnwhere seraphic songbirdsrnpromiscuously perchrnto blend their melodiesrnin canticles whose wordsrnthe vernal believerrnneed never decipher.rnics,” and even “Native Americans,” immigrants from Mexicornmake it clear that their so-called nationalism is only a ploy torngain influence over that great strongbox in Washington, fromrnwhich all blessings flow.rnBlack nationalism is even less possible than Mexican nationalism,rnsince African-Americans do not possess even the minimumrnessentials of a common identity. Their only shared experiencernis bondage, which ended over 130 years ago. The Nationrnof Islam is on the right track, although not in its territorial aspirations.rnBy latching onto a sect that is historically antagonisticrnto European Christianity, the Black Muslims have added a religiousrndimension to their racial identity. However, so long asrnthe welfare state keeps black /Americans in a state of dependency,rnthere are few incentives for accepting the military disciplinernimposed by Minister Farrakhan. Their best hope is a budgetcuttingrnRepublican in the White House. The election of arnRoss Perot or even a Steve Forbes could cause a second civil war.rnThe white response to black and Latino nationalism rangesrnfrom bored indifference to the moral outrage expressed by neoconservativernsuperpatriots whose whine of “After all I’ve donernfor you!” falls on deaf ears. Overt white nationalism is a phenomenonrnvery much on the fringe, so long as whites remainrnnominally Christian (or Jewish) and dimly aware of their ethnicrnheritages. White racists would like to undermine both Christianityrn(which they regard as a stumbling block to genocide) andrnthe national traditions that keep white peoples divided. Mostrnof them particularly dislike Southern nationalism—which isrnboth historic and Christian—and denounce groups like thernLeague of the South (formedy the Southern League) for acceptingrnblack members and for opposing the creation of a greatrnwhite union.rnIdentity politics is not simply a racket (although it is that,rnmost definitely). The ties that bound Americans together forrnthe past 100 years—a shared language, an Anglo-American culture,rna set of common heroes, a somewhat vague religious consensusrn(a Protestant cake with Catholic filling and Jewish icing)rn—have dissolved under the invasion of immigrants into arnculture already undermined and subverted b’ an elite class thatrnis feminist, anti-Christian, and anti-American. Healthy peoplerncannot exist without loyalty, and if there is no American nationrnto command their loyalties, they will turn inevitably to somethingrnelse—to religion, to a movement, to some lesser nationalismrnlike the South or Alaska. As Alaskans, they may come tornhate the lower 48, but their primary motivation is love of theirrnown, not hatred of the other.rnRacial nationalisms, on the other hand, are all rooted in hatred.rnLiberals like to lump together Nazis, the KKK, and racialrntheorists, as if they were all part of a continuous movementrnaimed at maintaining white supremacy. But the original Klanrnwas a national liberation army made up of ex-Confederates andrntheir younger brothers who refused to accept their status as arnsubjugated people. Black Americans have a perfect right tornhate the original Klan, but they should understand that thosernpostwar conflicts were part of a conquered people’s struggle torndefend itself. It was only accidentally a struggle between races.rnWhite racism toda} is something far more sinister. Whiternpeople per sc have no territory, no faith, no history to fight for;rnthey arc united only in their hatred of members of the enemyrnrace who wear their label on their face. Their very hatred is thernbadge of their emptiness. If white Americans really do begin tornthink of themselves as nothing but white, they will have lost everythingrnthey have that is worth defending. crn12/CHRONICLESrnrnrn