Democratic Presidential Debate

[xerx]

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.

So who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor -- is it you?? And why shouldn't some tiny hamlet in France preserve its genetic independence from the rest of French society?

[Raver]

So who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor -- is it you?? And why shouldn't some tiny hamlet in France preserve its genetic independence from the rest of French society?

Nobody can really make such arbitrary judgements at an individual level. All that can be done in this day and age is allow countries the choice to become nationalist or globalist/multicultural depending on their goals and outlook. So basically the choices are open borders/mass immigration, controlled immigration or closed borders.

Then whatever happens within those nations will be off the hands of the government. However, all multiculturalism will do is result in either balkanization or race mixture or both. Nationalism offers an alternative option for nations that choose to go a route that is opposed to open borders/mass immigration. Opting for either controlled immigration or closed borders.

[xerx]

Nobody can really make such arbitrary judgements at an individual level. All that can be done in this day and age is allow countries the choice to become nationalist or globalist/multicultural depending on their goals and outlook. So basically the choices are open borders/ mass immigration, controlled immigration or closed borders.

Then whatever happens within those nations will be off the hands of the government. However, all multiculturalism will do is result in either balkanization like in South Africa or race mixture like in Latin America. Nationalism offers an alternative option for nations that choose to go that route.

That doesn't answer my question. When a nation goes nationalist, who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor?

[Raver]

That doesn't answer my question. When a nation goes nationalist, who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor?

All nationalism entails in the definition I am using is either controlled immigration from various parts of the world or closed borders. When it comes to what people do within their nation for relationships then it doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter prior to the 21st century and the 20th century for the most part. So the % genetic difference never gets decided by anyone because there is no need for it.

[xerx]

All nationalism entails in the definition I am using is either controlled immigration from various parts of the world or closed borders. When it comes to what people do within their nation for relationships then it doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter prior to the 21st century and the 20th century for the most part. So the % genetic difference never gets decided by anyone because there is no need for it.

But there is a need to define "minor" if we're going down the path of controlling which populations are allowed to intermix based on their degree of genetic similarity.

If you're saying that nations can do whatever they want within their own borders, you're making the implicit assumption that genetic differences within nations are "minor." If geographical proximity is the main indicator of genetic commonality then this assumption is false: the French region of Alsace has more in common with the Rhineland than it does with Acquitaine, which has more in common with Spain.

The second issue is that you don't seem to mind the dilution of local populations that have different genetics from the mainstream and each other. Yet the fact that these differences are only minor is entirely your idea; to any xenophobes living in some tiny hamlet, you're a chauvinistic authoritarian who supports a political project designed to dilute their culture.

Whether you know it or not, you've crafted a definition of "minor" specifically to include or exclude people according to your personal tastes.