It depends how you define "people". Italian/Irish/German/Serb/Kurdish/etc. nationalism all make sense. "White" nationalism and "White" identity don't.
"Not history, language, ethnicity, experience, or anything else." wrong on every single point
-
-
I'm not a big fan of the "white" circle myself, but Europe has had a very integrated history over the last 2,000 - 3,000 years, it's all Indo European language (with microscopic exceptions like Basques), it's all influenced by Greek and Rome...
-
Scandinavia wasn't particularly influenced by Greek and Rome. Russia was tangential, once you get past the Xtianity & Cyrillic alphabet. The Finns, Estonians, & Hungarians (among the 25 MILLION+ white Eurasians who speak a Uralic language) are hardly "microscopic exceptions".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nope. See rebuttal elsewhere. You raised at most a vague statement about some sort of vague greek/roman influence. Your linguistic FAMILY argument was clever, but if you define it at the level of IE languages, you don't come anywhere near mutual intelligibility.
-
A historical and ancestral linguistic connection of Indo-European languages doesn't work as a nation-organizing principle. Even various Chinese/Arabic dialects are unintelligible to each other. And you didn't address, let alone disprove, ethnicity and experience in any way.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.