Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
As I was referring to earlier, the nation-state is only 200-300 years old. It's a patchwork of different tribes that were arbitrarily stitched together (through diplomacy or conquest) and forced to adopt a culture fabricated by powerful bureaucracies. These tribes or subpopulations have different genetics because they come from separate towns or regions. The cultural unity between Munich and Hanover is a very recent invention and would seem absurd to someone from the Middle Ages. Given regional dynamics, it's even likely that a Sicilian has more in common genetically with a Libyan refugee than with someone from Turin.

If culture is downstream from genes, and if maintaining culture is so important, are you in favour of preserving these subpopulations' genetic characteristics in order to prevent their ethnocide?
This is a false equivalence. Tribes with very minor differences within nations not the same thing as minor differences between neighboring nations, moderate differences between nations and neighboring nations from different continents and and major differences between distant nations at different continents.

I understand that nations and continents are not perfect in capturing ethnicity. Asia is extremely diverse as a continent: West Asians, South Asians and East Asians have little in common. West Asians and South Asians have more in common genetically with Europeans than East Asians who have more in common with Native Americans. Southern Italians have more in common with Greeks than with Northern Italians that have more in common with Northern Europeans and so on.

The idea of Italy being united centuries ago would of been seen as ludicrous back then. My point is not that nations are these perfect expressions of ethnicity and genetics because they are clearly not. However, nationalism is all we have now in the gap stop between globalism. For that reason we should defend it. And I am not even saying we should strive for ethno nationalist states everywhere. I advocate for nationalism in Europe, Africa and Asia.

However, outside of those continents I don't think it makes any sense like in the Americas and Oceania. Multiculturalism and globalism does not need to be spread worldwide like a grand experiment, but it can be implemented in some areas of the world where it makes sense and nationalism can be retained where it makes sense.

The boat has sailed hundreds of years ago on preserving ethnicities within tribes with nationalism, but nationalism has not sailed yet so preserving it where it makes sense and not where it makes sense is the best option IMO. Race and ethnicities can be both social constructs and biological constructs simultaneously. There can be an arbitrary aspect that has no value, but also a genetic aspect that has value. They are not mutually exclusive.

Anyways to answer your question, I am in favor of preserving nationalism in certain regions (Europe, Asia, Africa) because it gives the best chance for all ethnicities to preserve their genetic characteristics regardless of the extent of it. In the Americas and Oceania, nationalism makes far less sense and it doesn't need to be preserved.

However, I am coming to terms with the fact that nationalism in Europe is a pipe dream thanks to the EU making borders worthless. So for that reason I advocate for nationalism wherever possible like some nations have already begun to do and have had success so far: Italy, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc... Since globalism and open borders has become the new standard for 1st world nations to strive for the most part in the 21st century.