Has National Identity lost in (or its) merit (in worldwide perspective)?

>when they started writing within the perspective of nations instead of the perspective of men (and woman but lets not bitch about that)

The very oldest historians in the western tradition write from the point of view of nations, e.g. Herodotus listing out the great deeds of the barbarians. Or Livy's Ab Urbe Condita.

Good point, good point
I am aware of the civic and ethnitic priniciples of identity, bit rusty though. You have recent lit, that either disposes of or elaborates on this subject (or is a summary of the debat)?

I would be thankfull

His conception of historiography starts with Marx or some other leftard, he's just a dumb cuck.

anachronistic

There isn't much of a debate in the west because the idea of blood-based identity is verboten here, at least in Western Europe. As a good illustration of the divergence between West and non-West though, look at the concept of race in anthropology, in Western Europe and North America it is hardly ever used - In China, Japan and other East Asian states the overwhelming majority of anthropologists consider it a real and important concept however.

journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/374899?journalCode=ca

You still think in left and right. Who is the dumb cuck? Now we are binary, but like I said knowledge is cumulative. You're whole definition of what history is, is wrong.

Thanks!

Nationality is an unnecessary evil. Think about it, all human conflict arises from differences. Why would we want to be more different and not more the same?

The problem with nationalism is every person has a different view on what constitutes them.

For instance, you are a Breton living in a country named France based on secular civic nationalism born from the revolution against the forces of tradition, but one that enforces French language on all her subjects regardless of race or religion.

Your nation is what, exactly?

>human conflict arises from differences
absolute garbage

French nationalism isn't really civic nationalism, french minorities no longer properly exist and even in brittany most consider themselves as french and few would be favourable to an independent brittany

I am dutch. But the whole point is that that really doesn't matter. Or it shouldn't. I know it does. That is the reality. For me at least it doesn't really matter. It doesn't define me.

Now, I am not blind of the cultural and social bindings within (and between) regions scatterd around the globe. But nationalism doens't revolt against tradition, it sticks onto it like there is no tomorrow.

True that people start to identify with other things that their nation. But nationalism (read identification) still has merit in that it creates a cohesive cultural group. But the merit is gone when that cultural group is under the influence of the notion of 'the other'. And that awarness is groing rapidly (globalisation, migration, internet, social media etcetcetc). So that being said, national identities (different from but born out of natioanlism) is losing merit?

Not worldwide, def locally and personally. Just as the notion of 'the west', although being a reality and you may call it an unneccesary evil is locally and personally becoming empty. Nationality is empty, neccessary or not, evil or good, it undoubtedly is reality.

Now just as that is reality, so its internet social media, concepts, etc etc etc (you name it). You can't change that. We theorize to much, we are not practical. Language creates this blindspot of 'the other'.

('the other' is not just difference in ethnic groupings, religous, subcultures, cultures etc etc, it is also and maybe importantly between generations. Now how many people above 50? 40? 60? are on this board?

Your parents, my parents, my professors even, are missing the discussions that are on this history board. (I generalise, true, but for at least the dutch case, I belief this to be generally true).

For now I leave it at this. Just ponder, critic me, please do.

Nationalism was always a mistake.
Imperialism for the win!

sure sure, it was all with intent and pre-knowledge, set up by an all powerfull, mindcontrolling elite...:P

Een under imperialism there should be different cultural groups who coexist together.
If everyone becomes one culture te world would get boring as fuck.

Nationalism is pretty easy to understand yet all you faggot nay-sayers in the thread dont 'get' it because the modern world is a massive clusterfuck and erosion of nations history and cultural pride.

Lets put it this way: if you cannot trace an ancestor being born in the country you reside in 200 years ago, no are not a proper citizen and should be excluded from the rewards of said nation.

Ethno-Nationalism is where its at though. If your grandfather were French and settled in germany, renounced all of france and started speaking german only, marries a german girl, teaches his son all that is wonderful about the fatherland...Then by the Grandson, what indigenous German would be able to disern that his lineage was french?

...Try that with the same story but a guy from Trinidad. Or Tehran Or Bangkok Or some african hole, ethniclly speaking you will know, and ALWAYS know, they are not a true german.

>Lets put it this way: if you cannot trace an ancestor being born in the country you reside in 200 years ago, no are not a proper citizen and should be excluded from the rewards of said nation.
But there are plenty of countries that are less than 200 years old.
>about the fatherland...Then by the Grandson, what indigenous German would be able to disern that his lineage was french?
A biologist with a proper DNA sample. Or any guy knowing his family's history. Therefore whether he's a German or French is subjective and bases on the person's knowledge.

If the liberals are right and identities and loyalties and race is really as fluid as they claim, we should see a coherent American identity as strong as the ethnic chinese identity - but we don't, we see the opposite: The more heterogeneous America becomes, the more dysfunctional and balkanized it gets.

>coherent American identity as strong as the ethnic chinese identity
You mean besides the guys on the island. Great fucking example.

>You mean besides the guys on the island. Great fucking example.

You mean Taiwan? That's just a regional Chinese identity that doesn't want to have anything to do with the mainland - Taiwanese are only very marginally less ethnocentric than their cousins across the straits in Fujian, and they sure as fuck don't believe in "propositional identities".

National identity never had any merit. Its a tool the state uses to defend itself from other states, and can only hurt the individual, never aid him.

Basically a spook of the highest caliber.

China split in spite of ethnic Chinese identity but it's okay cause Taiwan has ethnic Chinese identity + hating mainland chinks.

Seems like ethnic identity doesn't work as well as intended.

I'm not sure what your point is. Taiwanese is still a de facto ethnic/racial identity, as is Chinese itself.

The two things I'm comparing here are the notion of identity based on common ancestry to identity based on proposition (aka "propositional identity").

Both Taiwan and China have de facto ethnocentric principles in determining identity, whereas the US is de facto propositional.

The coming century will see whether or not the American notion of identity based on proposition that supersedes other notions like race will work, and it's already not looking good.

My point is that China has a fair share of balkanization periods and even now they are "stable" only after splitting. Hong Kong also hates having their freedom taken away. It's stupid to judge that based on anecdotes.

Instability can have many causes not limited to ethnic identity. In fact USA is already a pretty old country and their identity has always had lot of propositions and merging between various European identities for example.

>My point is that China has a fair share of balkanization periods

The warring states periods are not comparable to what America is going through, since most of the time the breakup of a dynasty was not precipitated by racial/ethnic conflict, and if it was (e.g. Tang) it was Chinese vs. Outsiders.

Warring states were literally just competing factions who still all identified as part of hua.

>Instability can have many causes not limited to ethnic identity. In fact USA is already a pretty old country and their identity has always had lot of propositions and merging between various European identities for example.

Yes, and it would have been a lot more stable if it had remained predominantly Anglo. Introducing more European ethnicities, as well as blacks, into the body politic has undoubtedly made it less stable - and I say this as a Southern European mind - not some anglo supremacist.

Now you're going one step further and basically turning it into a microcosm of the entire world, albeit in America itself, with all of the attendant problems of the world too. Whether or not a coherent identity will emerge from this is up for debate - But the ultimate litmus test will be in the battle between PRC (ethnocentrism as identity) and USA (propositional identity) - If racial nationalism is so artificial, we should see the PRC break apart and the US go from strength to strength.

And if it does will it even be worth being part of? E.g. Brazilian identity is pretty goddamn meaningless beyond supporting Brazil at sport.

What american identity? The country's most memorable event is going to war with itself. There is state rivalry everywhere within the union. Talks of X or Y leaving the union since forever.

American identity is literally as you say, supporting the team at sports.

...

Yeah im aware some places have a short history but as far as most of europe is concerned theres no excuse to not know who the homogenous race that have claim to the land are.

The biggest problem is The USA. It was a mongrel beast very early on and it spolit it potential for a long time and is now making its final ugly form in the modern day. I laugh everytime an american acts like this came out of the blue. Yeah, no shit your country will fragment, it only stayed together so long because you kept the minoritys as an underclass/ sold a dream/tried to spin a 'culturally united history' as sufficant...

As to your other argument you missed the point entirely. Where as a you could hide and thereby remove the shackles of your old country by embracing a new country simply by blending in with the colour of your skin, the same can not be said if it is obvious you are clearly non-european. This was my example but it stands if we reversed it with and Scandinavian living in Bangladesh. He may speak the lingo and wear the cloths and act like a typical fellow there, but the bottom line is he's still a white man in a region where he is not naturally supposed to be and everyone will know it and treat him diffrently.

>What american identity?

American identity was originally Anglo. Then Anglo-Germanic, then pan-European, with each successive progression it has become less meaningful and more open to subversion.

>American identity is literally as you say, supporting the team at sports.

Right, but countries outside of the west don't think this way, to them their nation is a real organic thing - it's a representation and defense of their group identity on some primal level.

Even non-white ethnic groups in the west think this way.

>The warring states periods are not comparable to what America is going through, since most of the time the breakup of a dynasty was not precipitated by racial/ethnic conflict, and if it was (e.g. Tang) it was Chinese vs. Outsiders.
But stability isn't something that only bases on ethnic conflicts. You can't call yourself stable only because you never had a racial conflict, forget about all the other things.
> PRC (ethnocentrism as identity) and USA (propositional identity)
And what battle would be it and what would be the winning conditions? Because there are many more factors to country prosperity than just ethnic stability. You could point out plenty of homogeneous countries that are still somewhere between being troubled and shitholes. Hell economy doesn't run only on identities.

I doubt being more or less ethnocentric mattered when USA had just much larger industrial capacity compared to Japan in WWII.

>But stability isn't something that only bases on ethnic conflicts

I never said it was. We're talking about identity here though.

>Because there are many more factors to country prosperity than just ethnic stability. You could point out plenty of homogeneous countries that are still somewhere between being troubled and shitholes

All other things being equal, ethnic homogeneity is more desirable than ethnic heterogeneity. Of course, some nations are prosperous and stable in spite of ethnic heterogeneity - but never _because_ of these things (good example being Singapore's success based almost entirely off of Hakka Chinese).

>I doubt being more or less ethnocentric mattered when USA had just much larger industrial capacity compared to Japan in WWII.

Again, was this because the US was more ethnically heterogenous or because it had a larger population in total and larger land mass/resources?

Ow lets talk race!. How real is it or is it another word for ethnicity? In that case. who are we kidding with race? Empty concept!

>All other things being equal, ethnic homogeneity is more desirable than ethnic heterogeneity
Sure if you're only talking about inner stability of a nation. But outside of that think of it as something like this:
You're in a tribe
There are other tribes around you
If you merge together you will obviously be less stable but also have less power to act on other tribes, and in worst case a war between your neighbouring tribes might be even worse than some eventual splits.

Ability to rally a variety of people under your banner is hard, but powerful.

>And what battle would be it and what would be the winning conditions?

Economic and global influence.

More specifically - Indicators of living standards like: crime, proportion of country that is middle class, level of social dysfunction, livability of cities, life expectancy, average health indicators, academic rankings and so on.

At the moment the US is on top in a lot of these metrics, but PRC is catching up very, very fast. Remember Chinese view their nation as a reflection of themselves - when it performs badly they feel shame, and when it performs well they feel pride. You clowns always argue about how nationalism is just an excuse for feeling pride in your ancestors achievements, but that's a half-truth, it's about understanding that what your ancestors passed on to you is a torch you need to keep alight. In the US, where most white americans think their ancestors, especially their distant ones, were either dumb, wicked or both, this sort of mentality of collective inter-generational improvement is impossible.

But hey, at least you have more gay and transgender rights than they do.

Humans are innately tribal. The sense of what exactly constitutes "your tribe" can be expanded into a nation state. That is, everyone who looks like you and speaks your language belongs to "my tribe", with all the implications this has for cooperation and altruism with the resulting socio-economic efficiency, and psychological well-being.

Research has shown, that it is, in principle, impossible to include a significant number of people who are overtly different looking into the conception of "of my tribe".

Thus, the nation state is the ideal human polity. Not for reasons of ideology, but because of human biology.
I don't think it's impossible to confederate nation states consisting of peoples with similar looks ("racial background") into a larger body, and have the nations grow closer over time, but as far as I know, this hasn't been demonstrated in practice yet.

Sure, you can argue that some other system would be better for the greater good, but reality is what it is, and history shows that alternatives are less stable and/or less conducive to human well being.

Even when people come to America from South American shitholes, they still proudly wave the flag of their mother country and curse America. Everyone is a nationalist except for goober middle class white cucks who just want to hold and and cry when they hear Imagine by John Lennon

>If you merge together you will obviously be less stable but also have less power to act on other tribes, and in worst case a war between your neighbouring tribes might be even worse than some eventual splits.

It's not that binary ("either you unite, EU-style pooling of resources, or you don't").

Take the Chinese example again - Han colonist farmers expanded after the Qin and Han expansion (as well as other dynastic expansion periods like the Tang and Qing), either married Han women or married the local women and basically bred the natives out of existence in these areas - that's exactly what happened in Guangdong.

Or take Taiwan since you mentioned it. Taiwan became Han Chinese through colonization and ethnic cleansing of the Austronesian natives. Not through "combining" with them as equals.

>Ability to rally a variety of people under your banner is hard, but powerful.

USA can't even rally its own citizens to its banner, let alone anyone else.

please, don't get confusing. The national identity as a whole is just as real as the state. The interpretations are just as divers. Lets be practical. You got to change the perspective. Nationalism created a national identity. The merit was identification with the other in the direct reality (locally, nationally, with borders).

Now captain hindsight says I didn't have any merit. That is now, the merit now is pretty much gone. The negative seems to override the positive that came from it. But the spook of the highest caliber is something we spooked ourselves with. No someone or something outside of humans. But in your comment I read a certain intentionistic view, that never really was there. People have little to no idea, what the effect (or affact idk) is of their actions on the long term. We pretend we do, but we can't know the future. Just the present and the past. (at least create a well-structured opinion about it)

Please, anyone, show me a (convincing) study on race where the conclusion is that there is a race, different from ethnicity.

>Take the Chinese example again - Han colonist farmers expanded after the Qin and Han expansion (as well as other dynastic expansion periods like the Tang and Qing), either married Han women or married the local women and basically bred the natives out of existence in these areas - that's exactly what happened in Guangdong.
Breeding out of existence is something funny, if you fuck enemy women you're still mixing with them,. It's also not so possible now that in the contemporary times every nation sooner or later hits their cap and replacement/below replacement rates.
>USA can't even rally its own citizens to its banner, let alone anyone else.
They have done reasonably well when the need arose.

It is in my interest to associate with people who can help me.
Nationalism is only a barrier separating me from some of those people, and forcing me into implied comradeship with people who can't help me, because we were born within 100 miles of each other and eat the same spices with our beans.

Nationalism is stupid on the individual level, stupid on the family level, stupid on the corporation level, and is overall stupid all the way to the state level, where its necessary to keep your slav... I mean citizens in check.

You know full well that that kind of study is not only taboo, but also basically impossible to conduct, since you can neither define and measure race nor ethnicity with sufficient precision and every distinction you would make would be somewhat arbitrary and easy to attack. Nevertheless it is immediately obvious to anyone that human races do in fact exist, and that people differentiate into ethnic or cultural groups along racial lines.

All agreed, but history shows as well that humans are umpredictable. With this knowledge in mind, what you just said. How do you transport that knowledge from generation to generation (and lets stick to reality indeed, so how in your own country, region what ever), in a way that is inclusive, stays openminded- remains critical etc etc. (keeps discussion alive without bashing in the head of 'the other' just because you don't understand him right away).

>As to your other argument you missed the point entirely. Where as a you could hide and thereby remove the shackles of your old country by embracing a new country simply by blending in with the colour of your skin, the same can not be said if it is obvious you are clearly non-european. This was my example but it stands if we reversed it with and Scandinavian living in Bangladesh. He may speak the lingo and wear the cloths and act like a typical fellow there, but the bottom line is he's still a white man in a region where he is not naturally supposed to be and everyone will know it and treat him diffrently.
So, if I just hide my black skin well enough, I can become European?

>Breeding out of existence is something funny, if you fuck enemy women you're still mixing with them,.

Sure. But identity tends to be patrilineal. Look at present day Cantonese (the offspring of these couplings), they almost all identify proudly as Han.

>It's also not so possible now that in the contemporary times every nation sooner or later hits their cap and replacement/below replacement rates.

Of course it's possible. Think about a nation like Iceland. A tiny proportion of the population of China or even South Korea could wipe Iceland out as a distinct nation state.

>They have done reasonably well when the need arose.

No they haven't. Look at the Vietnam War, the last time the American population was mobilized en masse. The level of dysfunction and lack of discipline in the average unit, especially those mixed ones, was unimaginably bad.

>Nationalism is only a barrier separating me from some of those people, and forcing me into implied comradeship with people who can't help me, because we were born within 100 miles of each other and eat the same spices with our beans.

this concept relies on mutual reciprocity.

The problem with you is the same problem with most liberals - you assume the ideas you hold are the default belief system of all homo sapiens.

What liberals need to do is to learn a non-western language and live in a place like China, the Gulf, South Korea etc for a couple of years and realize just how few people on this planet believe in concepts like racial universalism, outside of the white races.

>Sure. But identity tends to be patrilineal. Look at present day Cantonese (the offspring of these couplings), they almost all identify proudly as Han.
They are about as Han as an Ethiopian-German is German.
>No they haven't. Look at the Vietnam War, the last time the American population was mobilized en masse. The level of dysfunction and lack of discipline in the average unit, especially those mixed ones, was unimaginably bad.
Their actual war performance was amazing when it came to killing. The fault for losing the war was actually purely political.

>The problem with you is the same problem with most liberals - you assume the ideas you hold are the default belief system of all homo sapiens.
>What liberals need to do is to learn a non-western language and live in a place like China, the Gulf, South Korea etc for a couple of years and realize just how few people on this planet believe in concepts like racial universalism, outside of the white races.

What a terrible strawman.
I am not american, don't live in the "first world", english is my third language, am not "liberal", whatever you mean by that, have traveled a lot more than most humans, and overall you are full of shit.

It is within any person's best interest to associate with useful and helpful people, and avoid useless and unhelpful people.
Nationalism groups you with some useless people, and fences you away from some useful people. It is objectively BAD for the individual, and is against the individual's interests.

Now make an argument rather than a strawman.

Disagree. I agree that you can't determine it in totality. Not asking to. The mere fact that it is a taboo, makes it interesting to tackle. Ethinicity is cultural it is a feeling, you can't measure. Biologically speaking you most def can determine race. Race is more that just different psychical features. You're blatent conclusion that race exist because it is obvious is stupid. Race is a result of the misuse of Darwin's idea's by social sciences. It is in fact obvious to anyone and everyone that race and ethnicity are one and the same. Only one of them is a taboo, therefor we don't talk about it. Take a guess which one.

beautiful

>They are about as Han as an Ethiopian-German is German.

No. Their paternal line is Han. They cluster with other Han subgroups on principal component analysis of genetic markers, an "Ethiopian German" would not cluster with actual, real Germans by contrast because they have no ancestral connection to the country.

>Their actual war performance was amazing when it came to killing.

You mean when it came to relying on B-52s dropping napalm.

If their war performance was amazing they wouldn't have been unable to dislodge the VC from the North despite overwhelming air superiority and superiority in terms of equipment, amenities, medicine etc.

I doubt it. Political nationalism is still a pretty young concept going back to french revolution (declarations des droits de l'homme) and to some extent the american revolution (bill of rights). The shift went from deriving sovereignty from God to deriving sovreignty from the people - thus killing the "right to rule by heavenly mandate" forever. So to me nationalism at its core is intermarried withour modern democratic values, it's just too often understated and underappreciated by people who dont pay attention to such things. However the same people who "attack" nationalism are the same who make appeal to values that are derived from the very system nationalism has enabled to become possible (hard to grant human rights, basic income, freedom of thought &expression, etc etc). None of this is enforcable without accepting that PEOPLE have a right to self-determination.

Cynics will attack and say I conflate modern democratic values with nationalism but I am not arguing that - I am arguing instead that for the shift from monarchy to democracy in a world kingdons & empires to take place, nationalism had to be the stepping stone to enforce such a shift. Today's "globalists" are nothing more than federalists who still build their arguments and practical application of their agenda on the same premise as modern democracy - thqt the people of a certain land and/or ethnicity have the right to self rule, and that'd we hope they exercise that right to join our union.

I am also not American, my first language is not English, etc etc.

Where in the third world do you live?

>It is within any person's best interest to associate with useful and helpful people, and avoid useless and unhelpful people.

Sure, but these describe utilitarian business-like relationships. Not a coherent group identity of any kind.

>overall you are full of shit.

In respect to what, the idea that the non-western world does not believe in racial universalism you mean?

>history shows as well that humans are umpredictable
Some things are rather predictable. Males are stronger than females. The different in build will remain the same throughout all of human history and be present in all cultures, and based on it some things will be very similar in most cultures.
Very few things are truly random, and deviations from the biological basis will eventually break down and be replaced by something that is able to enlist and satisfy instincts and impulses better.

>how to not be racist
People are naturally wary of The Other, but if they have neutral or good experiences, they become somewhat indifferent to their existence. Nobody wants to cohabitate with The Other, but that doesn't mean you can't have friendly relations. How many Japanese actually hate Americans or Europeans who don't live in Japan? Probably very few. Millions of Japanese visit these places every year. They buy our goods, and we buy theirs. There's no enmity. And that's an overtly racist and xenophobic civilized people.

I think Europe was a much more ideal place a few decades ago, before the EU really took off and the Muslim populations reached a critical mass. Being surrounded by many friendly foreign nations that still look the same and have some similar values teaches people to be inclusive and accepting and to be friendly with each other.

Unfortunately it wasn't understood how exactly this works, and what the limitations are, so Europe self destructed and is now slowly decaying to a state somewhere in between the Balkans and the Middle East.

>muh identity based around permissively giving out a travel document to whoever spends a few years living in a particular geographical area is WAY more real than actual kinship bonds guys!!!!!!

lol.

Can you not agree with a propositional identity but also agree that citizenship of western nations is given out way too easily these days? 99% of the foreign citizens of my country shouldn't hold our passport, but the 1% who should I have no opposition to really.

I do agree it's sort of odd that liberals would build a notion of citizenship around how you define yourself and then just turn it into a formality for whomever holds residence for a short while.

It's also why I dislike that whole conservative talking point of being ok with immigrants provided they "come here to work and pay taxes". Just because they want to make money in your country doesn't mean they actually love it.

>Sure, but these describe utilitarian business-like relationships. Not a coherent group identity of any kind.

If I am a guitarist, and I go to South America to join a band, I will associate with identity groups there - people of similar interests, into music, the band, our fans, and so on.
Is passion utilitarian? Is love utilitarian? Is the pursuit of academic knowledge utilitarian? Is sports excellence utilitarian? Did all the foreign volunteers fighting in the Spanish civil war do so for utilitarian reasons?

You are either a very limited man, or are intentionally limiting yourself to avoid the obvious contradictions to your words.
Nationalism does one thing - it draws borders. And as it is 100% certain there will be people you want to work with, live, appreciate, e share passions with, and so on, on the other side of those borders; and it is 100% certain that there are people you hate, dislike, don't understand, on your side of these borders - the borders are bad for you.

Nationalism makes it so I never become friends with that guy abroad who is just like me, and forces me to share purpose with this guy down the street who is the opposite of me, and whom I hate. It is wrong, and it is oppression.

Nationalism is a tool of the state to mobilize the individuals to protect it from other states, and it serves no purpose for the individual. It is bad for the individual, and it limits the individual.

>No. Their paternal line is Han. They cluster with other Han subgroups on principal component analysis of genetic markers, an "Ethiopian German" would not cluster with actual, real Germans by contrast because they have no ancestral connection to the country.
Ethiopian German as in a guy bringing his jungle fever girl to Germany and having a child. He still has ties to Germany.
>You mean when it came to relying on B-52s dropping napalm.
Do you want them to fight in melee? Technological superiority is also part of war.
>If their war performance was amazing they wouldn't have been unable to dislodge the VC from the North despite overwhelming air superiority and superiority in terms of equipment, amenities, medicine etc.
USA had the problem of going into a war nobody wanted, and fighting an enemy who fought for his survival. You can only win those by installing a friendly government who can hold its own while losing as little people as possible.

It was a war of massacring the Vietnamese and hoping your own people don't get tired of it. And again, failing in Vietnam isn't something specific than only the USA managed.

>I do agree it's sort of odd that liberals would build a notion of citizenship around how you define yourself and then just turn it into a formality for whomever holds residence for a short while.

That was done by design goy. French/British/etc citizenship wasn't easy to obtain prior to the era of mass immigration.

>It is in fact obvious to anyone and everyone that race and ethnicity are one and the same.
That is a confusion.

Ethnicity usually includes racial parameters. You can have groups based on religious or civil allegiance, but they will not be as tightly bound as ethnic groups and will be able to be swept away by politic storms or social upheavals. Look at German history during the 20th century. Do you really think the US population would hold together in unity through such changes?

Even though race is a necessary component of ethnic identity, that doesn't mean every member of a race shares the same ethnic identity. Many European ethnicities cannot be differentiated based on looks. Yet nobody would claim they are the same ethnic group.

Thus, your statement is wrong.

Same in latin america, there is no nationalism except when it comes to football.

>Ethiopian German as in a guy bringing his jungle fever girl to Germany and having a child. He still has ties to Germany.

Sure, after enough inter-generational breeding back into the paternal race - his offspring will be as German as any other.

>Do you want them to fight in melee? Technological superiority is also part of war.

And yet they still couldn't win.

>USA had the problem of going into a war nobody wanted, and fighting an enemy who fought for his survival. You can only win those by installing a friendly government who can hold its own while losing as little people as possible.

I'm a results driven person. The VCP took the whole of Vietnam after forcing the US to leave, what the reasons were are irrelevant - the US suffered a strategic loss in Vietnam.

>If I am a guitarist, and I go to South America to join a band, I will associate with identity groups there - people of similar interests, into music, the band, our fans, and so on.

We're talking about the formation of nations here: Rome, Athens, Anglo-Saxon England etc. If you can form a nation around these principles with people prepared to die for each other, then sure. It's as meaningful as race, until then - it isn't.

>Nationalism makes it so I never become friends with that guy abroad who is just like me

No it doesn't. You're conflating things again here.

Suppose I'm your friend, and you ask me to stay at my apartment because you're a leftist bum - and I agree and let you stay for a couple of weeks after which point you show no initiative to actually get a job and move out - Am I not your friend if I turn around and ask you to leave? Is the litmus test of friendship letting someone live in your family home for the rest of your life while contributing nothing?

>and it serves no purpose for the individual.

The individual cannot survive without a group to protect him. Group identity and individual identity are symbiotic, which is precisely why I described your racial nationalism as contingent upon mutual reciprocity. The moment someone turns around and forms an identity based on ethnic solidarity that rallies men to come round to estate/house/hovel and appropriate it in the name of their nation, then you're fucked, since you have no comparable group to call to your aid - since you are a speshul snowflake individual.

I come from a country dominated by delusional gommunists/anarcho-twats like you by the way.

I assure you the Chinese diasporas who live in your nations are still just as loyal to their homelands though.

>Rome, Athens
City states are hardly nations, no matter how many people they subjugate.

Really well put! Never saw it in that light. There is a truth in that.

Knowledge is cumulative :) Whoop Whoop!

"Rome" is not a nation.
"Athens" is not a nation.
"Anglo-Saxon England" is not a nation.
You don't know what a nation is.
Look up when nations started forming, under what conditions and considerations, and what a nation entails.

And you can have a group without a nation. You can CHOOSE which group you want, who belongs in, who doesn't. This is the better way to do things for the individual.

They absolutely are nations in the classical sense. "Natio" in Latin literally means kin. These people considered each other kin in the purest, most biological sense of the term - namely that they derived ancestry from some common founder figure.

>no matter how many people they subjugate

If they subjugate people and rule over them, then they increasingly cease to be Nations - you've got it the wrong way round. States which rule over vastly heterogeneous populations aren't nations, but empires composed of multiple nations which have to manage conflict between these groups as part and parcel of their modus operandi - much like contemporary America is.

>Sure, after enough inter-generational breeding back into the paternal race - his offspring will be as German as any other.
No, it will be just diluted. That's given he only breeds with German women etc. We have bred Neanderthal into extinction yet we still have their genes. Might as well accept normal black people too since their genes will be just as diluted after 1 more generation.
>I'm a results driven person. The VCP took the whole of Vietnam after forcing the US to leave, what the reasons were are irrelevant - the US suffered a strategic loss in Vietnam.
No shit, USA took a strategic loss there but it's hardly about their poor fighting capability. There were plenty more ethnocentric nations who failed to just beat Vietnam.

And if you like results, look how USA is still number 1 military power of the world.

>These people considered each other kin

No, you nigger, there were "houses" and "families" and so on. The country wasn't your kin, and you'd conspire with your actual kin to fuck the country for your own benefit.
Nepotism exists for a reason, and it wouldn't be possible by definition if nations were kin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadruga
This is what you mean, and this is basically an eastern european model extended family, or in the west a clan.
A clan isn't a nation.

>Look up when nations started forming, under what conditions and considerations, and what a nation entails.

You're thinking of a nation state as opposed to pre/early-modern monarchies, confederacies, empires etc. The thing is, these states were still composed of multiple nations - which is why they were so fractious to begin with (e.g. Austria-Hungary).

Nation is derived from Latin and was used commonly by authors like Livy to describe exactly what I'm describing - people who identify with a common genus as their primary group identity.

>And you can have a group without a nation.

Sure you can, which is why I advise you to put your own theories of group formation to the test and try and form a coherent state based around ideas like "we all like this shitty music subculture".

>"Rome" is not a nation.

Wrong.

>"Athens" is not a nation.

Wrong.

>"Anglo-Saxon England" is not a nation.

Wrong.

How many times must libtards be proven wrong on Veeky Forums? You're like fucking masochists I swear.

I think the definition of nation implies the existence of similar but differentiable tribes within the body of the nation, otherwise "nation" becomes a synonym of "tribe".

>States which rule over vastly heterogeneous populations aren't nations, but empires composed of multiple nations which have to manage conflict between these groups as part and parcel of their modus operandi - much like contemporary America is.
Or the Roman Empire.

>>"Rome" is not a nation.
>Wrong.
>>"Athens" is not a nation.
>Wrong.
>>"Anglo-Saxon England" is not a nation.
>Wrong.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Because its pretty established what a nation means, when nations started, and that those both not fit and predate the definition.

It is for sure predictable in its unpredictabilty. But what I meant. With captain hindsight in mind. No Roman or greek or prussian or dutch or chinese or canadian or who ever can look into the future. But we are predictable in that that is one of the things we are so focussed on. When I talk about all humans, I take humanity as a whole. I try at least to deconstruct what I have been told and what I think about it in order to reconstruct it again and again and again. Every day. I see merit in discussion more than in the subject per se. As history is discussion. (based on the notion that reality (now, then and tomorrow is without a doubt real).

(I am glad that I didn't decide yesterday to not return to this board. I gave starting a thread a go, and you all (most:p) make me hopefull about the potential of history as a science).

Knowledge is cumulative, but useless and static without friction and discussion.

>No, you nigger, there were "houses" and "families" and so on.

Uh what?

You do realize this doesn't invalidate what I'm talking about?

>"Classical authors who actually lived in antiquity were wrong!"
>"I'm right because I'm a speshul snowflake individual!"

Back to Veeky Forums champ.

>A clan isn't a nation.

It absolutely can be.

>No

So I'm just imagining all those modern day Cantonese calling themselves Han by exactly the same process?

>Might as well accept normal black people too since their genes will be just as diluted after 1 more generation.

More like after 5 or 6.

>but it's hardly about their poor fighting capability

Again. They failed to achieve their objectives not only strategically but tactically. If they were such a superlative fighting force why could they not dislodge Ho Chink Minh and his VC/Vietminh from the North?

>There were plenty more ethnocentric nations who failed to just beat Vietnam.

China literally occupied them for 800 years, lol.

>an extended family is a nation
>and a clan is a nation
>and states are nations

So a nation is a nation made of nations which are made of nations. Hang yourself, moron.

And the modern definition of the word nation, which is used for other purposes by older authors, and has gone through translation hell to reach you in whatever twitter post you read, is not an argument. Read a fucking book.

>Do you have a single fact to back that up?

All of these states fulfill the classical definition of a nation.

What more proof do you want?

>and that those both not fit and predate the definition.

Whoops. You'd better go back 2000 years and tell Livy that then!

>which is used for other purposes

It has always been used to mean a group of people who identify as part of a collective group based on kinship bonds. Always. That is why classical antiquity with rife with cities identifying themselves with particular founder figures whose supposed progeny all of the citizen body were descended from.

What you're getting confused by is the collective fiction that modern western "nations" are actually nations. They're not. They're empire-states composed of different tribes/nations.

>if the term don't fit, just make your own snowflake definition
>fuck every other person and definition, they are all jewish lies

All smiles :)

>So I'm just imagining all those modern day Cantonese calling themselves Han by exactly the same process?
I am sure you will accept a black person calling himself European, or all those half breeds saying they are (nation) before shooting someone.
>More like after 5 or 6.
Nah generally after a black person fucks a german women you're at the starting point of the previous example.
>China literally occupied them for 800 years, lol.
I am sure more recent example of France is better. I really wonder how stupid you're to think some magic ethnic identity gives you better chances of occupying an enemy country rather than relatively close distance versus literally on the other hemisphere, or lack of political will to fight.

>just make your own snowflake definition

That's the complete opposite of what I'm doing. I believe words should have literal meanings - and that's exactly what I'm doing here, I'm applying the literal meanings of words like Empire and Nation to describe contemporary and historical state of affairs rather than just turning them into rhetorical playthings.

For example, moderns would claim France is a nation when it clearly isn't and is more akin to a multi-ethnic empire at this point.

>I am sure you will accept a black person calling himself European, or all those half breeds saying they are (nation) before shooting someone.

4 or 5 generations down the line? Sure I would.

>Nah generally after a black person fucks a german women you're at the starting point of the previous example.

Yes, that's different - children tend to inherit identity from their father.

>I really wonder how stupid you're to think some magic ethnic identity gives you better chances of occupying an enemy country

Yeah, it's not like people feeling as if they belong to a single group makes them more cohesive than a balkanized bullshit identity like the modern "American" one when facing war conditions right?

>or lack of political will to fight.

The lack of political will directly relates to the fact the population was and is so dysfunctional and heterogeneous in the first place.

>Nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.
Nowhere does it say kin. We have words for what you are saying - clan, house, zadruga, extended family, and so on.
They don't scale as high as you might think, and are not nations. A nation has a different, larger scale meaning.

You are objectively wrong and are making up fake definitions to appear correct, and I don't even know why, since you still can't explain how a nation helps the individual. It just tells him to avoid X useful people, and associate with Y useless people, because hurr durr muh clan.

>Yes, that's different - children tend to inherit identity from their father.
They inherit genes from both and expression of those depends upon other things like dominant/regressive traits etc.
>Yeah, it's not like people feeling as if they belong to a single group makes them more cohesive than a balkanized bullshit identity like the modern "American" one when facing war conditions right?
I am sure they needed to feel one identity at that time and not an actual reason to lose their family.
>The lack of political will directly relates to the fact the population was and is so dysfunctional and heterogeneous in the first place.
It surely doesn't correlate with superficial goals that have no effect on the average Joe who would rather stay home.

>Nowhere does it say kin.

Where did you pull this definition from? The Latin "Natio" is an explicitly vocative term relating to the circumstances of one's birth.

>You are objectively wrong and are making up fake definitions to appear correct

t. Man who won't even source his own definition.

>since you still can't explain how a nation helps the individual

I have already explained this:

Let's suppose you achieve your ultimate ideal of stateless individuality - suppose a particular ethnic group come along and decide that your house/hovel now belongs to them.

Who will you turn to for help?

>They don't scale as high as you might think, and are not nations. A nation has a different, larger scale meaning.

All arbitrary.

>They inherit genes from both and expression of those depends upon other things like dominant/regressive traits etc.

Right, but identity tends to derive from the father.

>I am sure they needed to feel one identity at that time and not an actual reason to lose their family.

Huh?

I'm saying that it makes it easier to prosecute a war if your state is composed of people who all feel like they belong to the same group.

>It surely doesn't correlate with superficial goals that have no effect on the average Joe who would rather stay home.

The Korean War was just as superficial from the perspective of the PRC, yet the Chinese fought the Americans to a standstill.

>i know one word in latin
The latin "natio" isn't the modern nation. There were no nations when "natio" was used.
It was fucking used to refer to a collection of the latins AND the separate foreign people they conquered, for fucks sake.
The root of the word being natio doesn't mean the word means the same thing as the old natio.

>source
Any dictionary. Oxford, Merriam, Webster...

>you need a nation to protect you from bullies
You can have an institution like the fucking police, for example.
The police isn't a nationalist institution. It is a state institution, nation is irrelevant.

>my arbitrary borders beat established convention
No.

Ow I like your style.

Politically the US may be a unity, but socially I don't see it. And you don't have to live in the US to see it. As groups get bigger and more divers, that thight bonding becomes loose (don't call me a marxist or whatever, marx tried to predicit the future, is impossible. That is not the point I am making) Now, more than ever, the awarness of others is hugh. This creates both a blind spot for the other as well for yourself. This blindspot (and we can debate what creates that, call it language, call it a multitude of factors, a list so big, where would you begin) resulted in racial think. Tell me, in what way is someone born in Africa, Europe, American (NATION OF IMMIGRANTS), inherently, and let me emphasize the word inherently, different from a person born in an other continent than his own. We aren't. Sure we can debate all day about ethnicity.

I even agree with you that my definition of ethinicity is outdated and it is far far faaaar more complex than I can describe on this board. Europe is full of different ethnicites. But the term ethnicity, at least here, in my direct surrounds, is becoming more and more sallow, empty. Internet hollowed it out. Me, a Dutch man, can share my thoughts via this medium. Within minutes I can get a respons back, telling me that I am wrong or right. Telling me I am a leftist European cuck, whatever. Hollow terms.
Where is the Eureka moment in that?

Knowledge is cumulative, it can die in discussion and it can florish. Friction is essential. All I can do is make myself as clear as I can, the effort for that lies with me. But I can't do more than reach out, scream, waiting to be heard and critise, myself and the other

Now, stop the whining and be proactive :)

>You can have groups based on religious or civil allegiance, but they will not be as tightly bound as ethnic groups and will be able to be swept away by politic storms or social upheavals. Look at German history

My fucking sides.
German history is literally a collection of religious or civil allegiances trumping ethnicity.

True, we need practical solutions. Anachronistics have a merit when it comes to perspective in time but in language, not per se when it comes to notion of ideas like Nation, nation-state, The state, government, rulers etc etc

>The latin "natio" isn't the modern nation. There were no nations when "natio" was used.

please_be_a_troll.jpg

Again, you are confusing the term "Nation" with some historiography that asserts the "Nation State" was a radically different form of statecraft compared to anything that came before.

>You can have an institution like the fucking police, for example.

So... You're going to have a concept like a police force with no over-arching authority that governs them?

Or are you arguing in favor of a state, but just a state to which nobody has any sort of higher loyalty to, in defense of individuality, in which case what is to stop those members of the police force who are part of ethnic group Y identifying with ethnic group Y when they come to take over this particular polity you're inhabiting?

>state

A state has to be based on something. If I understand you correctly you believe in states but not states based on any sort of identity, in which case, as I said, what is to stop the people who happen to live within this arbitrary geographical division identifying along racial/ethnic lines and engaging in things like racial/ethnic nepotism anyway?

>No.
>What makes X a nation is because they're bigger than Y

Not an argument. Is Russia more of a nation than Estonia?

I don't see how. People in my nation have always seen ourself as superior to everyone else, and outsiders as people we have to show piety on for not being born here. If you're not from around here you're dumber, uglier and most likely less wealthy than a native and as a superior beings we keep being humbled by our own existence.

talk for yourself, buddy. People here hate the government but love the country

>t.Uruguayan