I believe the reasons are self-evident.

Their communities are separate from ours.

They have separate categories but that doesn't mean that people are being labelled or sorted properly

You assume its a functional system

Yeah the labels don't make any scientific sense, they're intersecting all sorts of groups and then separating them elsewhere.

It must be either-or. Either they look at broad generalizations of groups, or they don't.

Categorically the method must be the same across the board, or else it's manipulative.

Hispanics and light skinned blacks often get recorded as white as well.

Interesting to see the FBI has been infiltrated with SJW nonsense, too

What hasn't been at this point?

The fbi gathers the data they don't create it

Like I said, only a matter of time before race stats go unrecorded due to some bullshit excuse.

Police and courts create the data

Or just unreported on.

How much you wanna bet there are white-skinned African Americans in that list who are recorded as "white"

The majority of which is attained via their identification records, whether government-issued identification, or birth records if they're absent. There's many ways they pool accurate records.

Yeah, and if it's unscientific it must be thrown out for being useless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awXX_ofcKks have fun with this shitshow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6D3JlLtjnM

@ETBrooD What you're describing then is voluntaryism, not Nationalism

The closest thing that comes to it is National Anarchism, which still doesn't respect Lockean concept of property rights

So again, Nationalism is inherently collective

Involuntary actions are not inherent within nationalism, they're inherent within authoritarianism.

> identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Doesn't mean it must be enforced

> support for its interests

Not the individual's interests, but the collectives' interest

That's an argument for collectivism being authoritarian, not for nationalism being authoritarian.

inherently*

Collectivism is constant throughout all forms of nationalism, you're arguing for a form of "Nationalism" which is based on voluntary co-operation which falls after one generation if not enforced

And it already has a name, Voluntaryism

So again, it is disingenuous to argue for an individualist Nationalism

Like I said, humans aren't going to have an individualist nation, because it's not typical for humans to do so

That doesn't mean the idea of nationalism itself demands collectivism

There's a difference between observable behavior and ideology

@ETBrooD By your parochial definition, Socialism can technically be "individualist" if everyone in the commune agreed to mutually share the profit according to labor theory of value

Be mindful that, just because there's a uniformed symmetry in social behavior, mainly informal and formal norms, doesn't mean it's collectivism, either. Individualism enables people to attain consensus adopting and phasing out social behavior in accordance with utility gains, and unlike nations before the U.S., we restrict individuals and institutions within which they partake, voluntarily, on the basis of mutual interests, from engaging in force to coerce individuals into adherence, absent voluntary and rational decision. Instead, individuals and institutions must rely upon competition, exempting force, though many do deploy deception, which I consider force, as it often seeks to subvert the rational decision of the individual, at the demise of their own interests, which circumvents the very idea of self-government, the reason objective truth is necessary to preserve freedom. A Constitution and the Rule of Law secures this, and though some may object to it, because they'd enjoy exercising undue influence to subvert the former, it doesn't mean it's legitimate. We're not going to throw away everything we know for a few, dissenting and illegitimate voices. Anyway, individualism and collectivism overlap, from this view, and this is the test for legitimacy.

I might add, this is a rather Natural Law/Lockean view as well.

At the root of this issue is whether or not the State or individual is to determine utility. Those who pursue consolidating power into the State, interpreting and dictating utility, rather than leaving it to individuals, see themselves as gaining utility under such a system, despite the fact they're ironically its victims. It's very simple, as is all human social behavior. Now, decisions made on the basis of utility, all social behavior is, which is how cultures form, are always filtered through a hierarchy resting on satisfying physiological functionality, first and foremost. That's why cultures in free civilizations come and go, but never leave without a trace, only retaining that of highest utility until an alternative emerges providing greater utility. It's the reason why Western civilization, what's broadly interpreted as culture, is superior to all alternatives: creative destruction. Even the advancement of the English language rested on this basis, transforming language over thousands of years into that with the highest RIE (Rate of Information Exchange), improving generation over generation. If you eliminate the freedom of the individual to determine utility, you eliminate what has enabled the creative destruction that made us the great civilization we are.

But, again, I say it overlaps and balance can exist, though you do have extreme examples of both, the dichotomy between Communism and Anarchism, for example. Neither of them fully understand the grand picture, though, despite how intrigued they are with their conflict against one another.

Some actual news from WaPo