Without addressing my argument

Can I even warn?

Idk

!warn

-warn

.warn

i mean, he did address your argument, you're racist

When I chose c or when I changed to b.

?

Ive seen what you said in the bible nice try Jesus

I havent even read the bible

So what did I say?

Im curious

New testament or old?

New testament is like the star wars prequels.

you know i dont quite know

Oh

Ok

But what choice was racist?

B or C?

C

So im only choosing racist choices but I dont think them?

That all depends on you

But right then

When I chose it

@Enigmatic★Chromatic Your concept of nation and generally huma nhistory is flawed, to have a commonhistory, language, and culture you must necessarily have isolated populations. In the past we can check the DNA ad notice that modern descendants of original peoples were in fact genetically isolated. Jews are a perfect example of the fact that people literally dont interbreed.

Also ethno nationalism is redundant, Nationalism is defacto ethno nationalism. The french nation had its predecessors who were mostly from one family of tribes, who spoke a ocmmon language. For example Poland formed from the lechite slavic tribes, fun fact the kaszubians isolated themselves for os long that they frmed their own language and own genetic markers. A nation is literally an isolated people, an ethnicity. Because this also relates to the fact that identity is formed upon the pillars of immutable characteristics so unfortunately everything you said pertaining to nation is wrong. Both historically and scientifically.

" In China the dominant nation is Han Chinese with 54 other ethnic groups, many of which are given national self determination and autonomous regions" Literally undermines your entire premise.

I think you missed my point

Also the Jewish example is pretty bad since the Jewish people I imagine you're picturing are Ashkenazi, who have European ancestry. As opposed to Jews with Arabic ancestry for example

But France is made up of several tribal and racial ancestries. Even today we can see a map of different areas dominated by different majority racial background like Celts, North Germanic, Celto German and Greko Roman people just to name a few

Nations have never formed on a racial basis and never will, your conception is rather ahistoric

"Nations have never formed on a racial basis and never will, your conception is rather ahistoric" With few exceptions this is untrue, and itself is ahistoric. People unite based on common traits first and foremost, the genetics backs me up on this. I can once again cite the slavs, the scandinavians, the germans, bavarians, japanese, etc. The list of examples for my hypothesis is far greater than yours.

Its generally simply common traits, language, appearance, history, tribalism and in group bias. Its all hardwired into humans. hell even england is a prime example of this. England is primarily english, while ireland and scotland are celtic and the welsh are also something different, these groups are largely isolated and interbreeding is rare. Interbreeding only ever occured on a mass scale by actual force, and as such people united on these basic traits. Nationalism and nations are by nature tribal and of one ancestry not multiple. France did eventually unite its essentially conflicted peoples by essentially pointing far into the past ot their last common ancestor. Again this points to my hypothesis. And even then this union is temporary. I can go through history and demonstrate that veyr few things happened. 1) Nations form 2) nation takes over land and exterminates the natives 3) Nation takes over land and creates republics, no mixing occurs 4) Nations peacefully agregate and still dont mix

However we look at it Nations are not racial but ethnic. I reject the premise that nations were simply "muh culture" which somehow can be applied to multiple ethnicities even though it simply cant.

98% of jews are ashkenazi jews btw. or some % above 90. Which is suprising to be honest. I was expecting much more jews from outside of europe. However jews are peculiar in that they are a religious identity, however izrael most definately can described original and converted jews.

***A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.***

We have evidence that multiracial communities are literally never stable, common language is a result of common heritage, you leave out history which is convenient because this also pertains to values, economic life is irrelevant here and is inserted to remove the racial idea. You played a clever shifting of definitions

Also you cleverly copy pasted it from wikipedia that itself tries to run from the racial aspect by adding elements and placing them in front of common identity while also trying to somehow magically tie in identity.

Wiki -> "A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is distinct from a people,[1] and is more abstract, and more overtly political, than an ethnic group.[2] It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[3]"

So what of this mandates homogeneity and common ancestry?

1) Common interests (interests are based on identity which is based on immutable characteristics)
2) common language, territory, ethnicity, psychological make up, are all elements of culture
3) Since culture is tied to ethnicity it is exclusive to that ethnicity
4) The end definition is important since wiki is being retarded and trying to derail ethnicity from nations definition. It is no more abstract than the ethnic group, it is the ethnic group. It is not a political formation, that is nationalism, however autonomy, unity and particular interests are reserved to an identity that is an ethnic group. No matter how you spin it ethnicity and common heritage are necessary.

the issue however may seem to arise from when we assume nations form, mine is that nations always existed however they were not called nations but rather tribes. or a common bloodline in the slavic family we have an ancient word called Rood (rod but hte O is accented) meaning essentially either family or nation, this then became modernised for clarity into Narod, and Rod. many languages have similar concepts added to them, additionally the genetic evidence, its all there. Empires may have formed multiethnically but all were forced to exterminate the minor ethnicity or lose that territory.

My definition of Naiton as such is:

***A group of people who by secondary identity identify with each other, through common language, ancestry, primary identity, geographical location and customs unite to create a specific and unique cultural group and forming a tertiary identity***

**Primary identity is identity that is formed based on immutabl traits, sex, race, and phenotype. It is the most basic identity along with name and individual traits and character**

**Secondary identity is identity that is socially established, and it is the beggining of small group identities as well, common customs appear, values, etc. it is also mandatory that it is derived from the former, as a common point from which it starts.**

**tertiary identity is intergroup identity that is based on the former two, this is when culture arises**

eh enough of me reeing and jumping around in circles, stress lack of sleep does that to you

also i see the issue, it depends how you approach what a nation is, when you approach that a nation is from the state you get that ethncity doesnt matter and simply the passport does, however if you approach the nation as in it is a group that has formed and therefore must have a past, it is not a top down but a bottom up approach to the definition, you get what I have come to conclude. Generally identity, genetics, history, human development, group dynamics, etc. demonstrate that the bottom up approach is more appropriate than the idea that Nation = country. Which is IMO on wikis part purposefully subversive and pushes towards multikulti

additionally there is another issue of word origins. It might be quora but this is additionally important. "Ethnicity comes from the Greek “ethnos” which describes a race or people from which you originate. Nationality (i.e. nation) comes from the Latin word for “birth”, i.e. the tribe you were born into"

All of your examples however constitute modern ethnic categories, or nationlities and not distinct racial groups. Slavs are made up of several different racial and genetic groups, especially those invaded by the Mongols. German is also an identity based on a modern country and not a single ethnic or racial group. It's distinctly American to think you could categorize it as a genetically hemogeneous whole

Genetic drift between the Celts, Anglos, Saxons, and you might be able to figure this one out *Anglo-Saxons* is common

That last one is a particularly good example because it's a merging of the native people of the continent, and the saxons from Saxony, now a part of Germany

The idea that these groups try to maintain hemogeneity is a weird claim when it requires extreme top down authoritative control to force genetic bottlenecking like that. Which could lead to breeding in weakness and wiping out entire populations but disease. You have to stop people from interbreeding. Take for example all the white dudes who pine after Asian girls, yellow fever