> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.nationalism.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.nationalism.io/nationalism/what-is-nationalism/other-forms-of-nationalism.md). # Other forms of nationalism Civic nationalism is one of the main forms of nationalism associated with prioritising political continuity. Cultural nationalism, along with narrower variants such as religious nationalism and linguistic nationalism, is associated with prioritising cultural continuity. Ancestral nationalism is one of several forms of nationalism associated with prioritising people continuity. It defines the nation through continuity with a distinct historical population, especially through descent from the founding or long-established peoples of the nation. Other variants, such as nativist nationalism, racial nationalism, blood nationalism and blood-and-soil nationalism, also prioritise people continuity, but they do so in different ways and with different levels of inclusiveness or exclusiveness. ## **Ethno-nationalism and ethnic nationalism** The word ethnos is derived from Greek and refers to a people understood as a cultural-historical community. In modern discussion, it is often used interchangeably with ethnic, though the two are not always identical in meaning. Ethnos generally refers to a community bound together by a shared identity, culture, language, history, traditions, and often a sense of common ancestry. It expresses the idea of peoplehood: a distinct cultural group that may be understood separately from a political nation-state. In ancient Greek usage, however, ethnos did not always refer to a strictly defined cultural group. Its meanings were broader and could include a “band”, “tribe”, “caste”, “crowd”, or simply a number of people accustomed to living together. The term ethnic is also broad and is defined in a variety of ways by modern dictionaries: * “related or belonging to a group of people who can be seen as distinct because they have a shared culture, tradition, language, history, etc.” - [Cambridge Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ethnic) * “of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background” - [Merriam-Webster Dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnic) * “means connected with or related to different racial or cultural groups of people” - [Collins Dictionary](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ethnic) Both ethnos and ethnic tend to combine ancestry and cultural aspects into a single concept. Depending on how these terms are interpreted, they may also allow for the possibility that someone outside the ancestral group could join the nation through sufficient cultural assimilation. Because culture and ancestry are distinct aspects of group identity, it can be more useful to treat them separately rather than merge them under the broader labels of ethnos or ethnic. For this reason, the terms cultural nationalism and ancestral nationalism could be more suitable here for defining distinct forms of nationalism. They are more explicit about how national membership is understood and defined and how this relates to what is being prioritised for preservation and continuity. Ancestry can provide a powerful basis for defining the boundaries of national membership, while ethnos or ethnic identity usually refers more broadly to a cultural-historical community that may include ancestry alongside language, customs, religion and shared memory. In many cases, ethnic or ethnos identities develop out of, or incorporate, older descent-based understandings. A cultural nationalist is primarily concerned with preserving the nation’s culture, traditions and way of life. An ancestral nationalist is primarily concerned with preserving the continuity of the nation’s ancestral group. In practice, an ancestral nationalist may also care deeply about cultural preservation, but ancestral nationalism is the more explicit term when the nation is defined principally in terms of descent. Rather than using ethnic nationalism or ethno-nationalism as a type of nationalism, this analysis will instead separate them into cultural and ancestral nationalism. This is because the broader definitions often combine culture, language, history, religion and descent into a single concept. Separating these elements makes it clearer whether national membership is being defined by assimilation into a culture or by descent from a historic population. ## **Nativist nationalism** Nativist nationalism prioritises the interests, status or political influence of people considered “native” to a country over immigrants, outsiders or newer arrivals. It is concerned with protecting the established national community from rapid external change, especially demographic, cultural or political change caused by immigration. Nativist nationalism can vary significantly in how it defines who counts as native. A mild form may define natives simply as those born in the country. This does not necessarily preserve the continuity of a long-established ancestral population, but it can slow demographic change by distinguishing between native-born citizens and recent immigrants. In this form, nativism may be closer to civic or cultural nationalism with restrictive immigration preferences, rather than a form of ancestral nationalism. A stricter form of nativism may require a person’s family to have lived in the country for several generations before they are considered native. For example, a nationalist movement might treat people as native only if their family has been present for fifty or one hundred years, or for three or more generations. This gives nativism a stronger connection to people continuity, but it still does not necessarily preserve the original ancestral population indefinitely. It may instead create a pathway by which newer groups eventually become part of the native population over time. The strictest form of nativist nationalism overlaps more clearly with ancestral nationalism. In this version, native status is tied to descent from the founding or long-established peoples of the nation. Rather than treating birth in the country or several generations of residence as sufficient, it defines native membership through a deeper ancestral connection to the historic national population. Because nativism can be applied in many different ways, it is often useful to use more precise terms where possible. A civic or cultural nationalism can include nativist policies if it seeks to slow demographic change while primarily preserving institutions or culture. A softer ancestral nationalism may also use a generational standard of belonging. A stricter and more default position for ancestral nationalism would be that membership requires descent from the long-established ancestral population rather than merely recent family residence. Nativist nationalism is therefore best understood as a more flexible category. It can be used where the aim is to limit or slow demographic change while still allowing some degree of population change over time. If the aim is more specifically to preserve historical demographic continuity, then ancestral nationalism is likely the more applicable and precise term. ## **Racial nationalism** Racial nationalism defines national belonging through membership in a racial group. Instead of defining the nation by citizenship, culture, language or descent from a specific ancestral population, it defines the nation through a broader racial category. Compared with narrow blood nationalism, racial nationalism can be more broadly inclusive within its chosen racial category. For example, a racial nationalist who defines the nation in terms of whiteness might include English, French, German, Dutch or Scandinavian people within the same broad racial grouping. In that sense, racial nationalism can include multiple ethnic or ancestral groups that would remain distinct under narrower forms of blood or ancestral nationalism. However, racial nationalism is less precise if the goal is to preserve the continuity of a particular historical people. A racial category may include many distinct peoples with different languages, cultures, histories and ancestral identities. For example, the English, French and Germans may all be classified within a broad racial category, but they remain distinct national and ancestral groups. For that reason, racial nationalism is better understood as a form of broad racial-group continuity rather than national people continuity in the narrower sense. It may preserve a wider biological or racial category, but it does not specifically preserve the continuity of each distinct people within that category. If the focus is on preserving a particular historic nation or founding population, then ancestral nationalism or another descent-based nationalism is more suitable. ## **Blood nationalism** Blood nationalism is the idea that membership in a nation is based primarily on shared blood, inherited ancestry or biological descent. A person belongs to the nation because they are understood to share a common biological background with its people. Blood nationalism is usually more biologically focused than ancestral nationalism. It treats shared descent or bloodline as the central basis of national belonging. There may be multiple related bloodlines within a nation, but the key idea is that membership is inherited and rooted in biological descent rather than citizenship, culture or assimilation. Ancestral nationalism overlaps with blood nationalism because both are descent-based. However, ancestral nationalism can be applied more broadly. It may focus on descent from the founding or long-established peoples of the nation, even if those peoples did not all share a single biological bloodline. For example, if several distinct groups participated in the formation of a nation, ancestral nationalism could include their descendants as part of the inherited national community. Blood nationalism can often be narrower when it requires a stronger degree of common biological descent among members. In this sense, it is more exclusive than a broader ancestral nationalism that includes all groups with long-standing ancestral ties to the nation’s formation. Ancestral nationalism may be especially relevant for nation-states whose historical populations included several related or neighbouring groups that became part of a common national inheritance over time. Because many nation-states were historically more demographically homogeneous than they are today, ancestral nationalism can still be a significantly exclusive form of nationalism. It prioritises continuity with the long-established ancestral population, even if it does not require every member of that population to share one strict bloodline. Ancestral nationalism may also be more pragmatic in cases where individuals or minority groups have had ancestral ties to a nation for centuries, even if they do not share the primary bloodline of the majority group. Such groups may be deeply integrated into the historical population and may have no meaningful connection to any other nation across a very long and extended period of time. In these cases, ancestral nationalism could be applied more flexibly to allow for a broader understanding of inherited national belonging than strict blood nationalism. If the main priority is descent from the founding or long-established peoples of the nation, then ancestral nationalism is usually the more suitable term. If the main priority is preserving a distinct biological group defined by common blood, then blood nationalism is more precise. The two concepts overlap, but blood nationalism can be seen as stricter and more biologically defined, while ancestral nationalism can more easily imply the inclusion of a broader range of historically rooted descent groups. ## **Blood-and-soil nationalism** Blood-and-soil nationalism combines inherited descent with a strong connection to a particular homeland. The “blood” element refers to ancestry, lineage or biological descent, while the “soil” element refers to rootedness in a specific land, territory or ancestral homeland. This makes blood-and-soil nationalism different from ordinary blood nationalism. Blood nationalism can be geographically portable: a person may be considered part of the nation because of their descent, even if they live abroad or were raised in another country. Blood-and-soil nationalism is stricter because it also stresses the importance of being rooted in the homeland itself. The “soil” element matters because it connects people continuity with cultural and territorial continuity. A blood nationalist may consider someone of the same descent to be part of the nation regardless of where they grew up. A blood-and-soil nationalist may instead argue that full national belonging requires both the correct descent and a formative connection to the ancestral land, its culture and its historical community. For that reason, blood-and-soil nationalism can be seen as a stricter version of blood nationalism. It does not only ask whether someone shares the nation’s descent; it also asks whether they are rooted in the national homeland. This can make it more restrictive toward both immigrants without the relevant ancestry and diaspora members who have the ancestry but lack lived connection to the homeland. Blood-and-soil nationalism is one possible form of people-continuity nationalism, but it adds a strong territorial dimension. The “soil” element can be attached to different foundations. In blood-and-soil nationalism, it is attached to a stricter biological or blood-based understanding of the nation. In ancestral nationalism, similar concerns about rootedness, homeland, upbringing and cultural formation could be incorporated without making bloodline the sole foundation of membership. This is an important distinction. Ancestral nationalism does not necessarily require an organic bond between bloodline and land in the same way that blood-and-soil nationalism does. Its primary concern is continuity with the founding or long-established ancestral population of the nation. Because of that, it can be broader than blood nationalism: it may include historically rooted groups that were part of the nation’s formation or long-term development, even if they do not share the majority bloodline. An ancestral nationalist approach could still place importance on territorial and cultural rootedness. For example, it might distinguish between someone who has ancestral ties to the nation but was raised abroad, and someone who was raised within the national homeland and formed by its culture, institutions and way of life. It might also place greater emphasis on whether newcomers or their descendants become culturally integrated over time. In this sense, blood-and-soil nationalism and ancestral nationalism can both care about homeland-rootedness, but they attach that concern to different foundations. Blood-and-soil nationalism begins from bloodline and adds land-rootedness. Ancestral nationalism begins from continuity with the historic people of the nation and may incorporate land, culture and upbringing as additional factors. This makes ancestral nationalism potentially broader and more flexible, while blood-and-soil nationalism is usually stricter and more exclusionary. ## **Practicalities and comparisons**
This diagram illustrates how each form of people-continuity nationalism might be applied and what it seeks to preserve. * **Nativist nationalism** — In its broadest interpretation, nativist nationalism could include anyone born in the country. This would not necessarily protect the long-established ancestral population from replacement or preserve the nation’s culture and civic-state from external influences. A stricter interpretation might require someone to have roots in the country extending back several generations or at least 100 years, placing it closer to the cultural-preservation end of the scale. At its strictest, however, nativist nationalism begins to replicate ancestral, blood or blood-and-soil nationalism. Nativism is therefore a broad and flexible category, but this can make it less clear about precisely what is being preserved. Ancestral and blood nationalism are more direct and explicit in this respect on who is "native". * **Racial nationalism** — In its broadest application, racial nationalism protects a broad racial category rather than the continuity of distinct ancestral groups. Within a white racial nationalism, for example, the replacement of the English ancestral population by the French might not be considered a problem because both are classified as part of the same broad racial group. Stricter forms of racial nationalism may focus more narrowly on distinct ancestral groups, but in those cases the terms ancestral nationalism or blood nationalism are likely to be more precise. * **Ancestral nationalism** — The broadest interpretation of ancestral nationalism includes anyone with long-established ancestral ties to the founding or historical development of a particular nation. This may include people who do not share the majority population’s bloodline but who also have no clear ancestral ties to another nation. It is especially relevant to countries formed by multiple founding peoples or by long-established populations that became politically and culturally unified over time. Some groups may have lived within a nation for centuries, contributed to its development and become part of its inherited national story without sharing a single biological lineage. Ancestral nationalism can account for these cases more easily than strict blood nationalism because it focuses on continuity with the historical national population rather than one narrow bloodline. It can therefore help prevent statelessness, although the inclusion of historically rooted groups with different bloodlines leaves a small long-term possibility of demographic change affecting the original ancestral population. * **Blood nationalism** — Where common blood is the primary basis of national membership, blood nationalism provides one of the most reliable ways to preserve a distinct biological or ancestral group. However, it can be impractical unless meaningful alternatives exist for those who would be excluded. Such individuals would need access to another secure national home, potentially through nation-states based on civic or cultural membership in which they could become full members. * **Blood-and-soil nationalism** — Under blood-and-soil nationalism, common blood is necessary but not sufficient for full national membership. A person must also be born, raised or meaningfully rooted in the relevant ancestral homeland. This makes it the strictest and potentially most reliable approach for preserving both the ancestral group and its culturally rooted identity. Overall, ancestral nationalism is the clearest terminology for a system seeking to preserve the continuity of a distinct historical people while remaining more flexible than strict blood or blood-and-soil nationalism. It occupies a middle position among people-continuity nationalisms: it is more descent-focused than civic or cultural nationalism, but less biologically strict than blood nationalism and less territorially restrictive than blood-and-soil nationalism. This makes ancestral nationalism a potentially pragmatic analytical category. It can prioritise continuity with a historical population while accounting for the complexity of real nation-states, where founding peoples, long-settled minorities and inherited national identities do not always map neatly onto one or a few biological bloodlines. Blood nationalism is more precise where the central concern is preserving a distinct biological lineage, while blood-and-soil nationalism is more precise where the aim is to preserve a descent group that is also rooted in a particular ancestral homeland. Stricter forms of people-continuity nationalism nevertheless raise more difficult questions about citizenship, minority status, mixed ancestry, long-settled populations and exclusion. Blood nationalism may be easier to envisage where excluded individuals already have another secure national home or recognised citizenship. It becomes substantially more difficult to justify or implement where it would leave people stateless, politically unrepresented or permanently excluded from the only society to which they have meaningful ties. A short to medium term alternative for groups seeking stronger protection of their continuity could involve protected cultural communities, local autonomy, devolved authority or recognised minority self-government within a wider nation-state. These arrangements could allow a distinct group to preserve its identity, institutions, traditions or demographic continuity without requiring the entire state to adopt a strict blood-nationalist model. For existing nation-states, milder nativist or ancestral-nationalist approaches could therefore be more pragmatic starting points than stricter variants such as blood nationalism, especially where the state previously operated on a civic and inclusive basis. Nativist or ancestral approaches could help reverse some demographic change without defining national membership entirely through descent or common blood.