That raises the question; if one could create an ethnostate on Mars, which is entirely uninhabited, and all those of a specific ethnic group who wished to live on the Martian ethnostate could be magically teleported there to live surrounded by their group under their own flag, would that be morally wrong?

<Snipped quote>
Well I guess it would be bad if they didn't share any of the whole planet.

<Snipped quote by Kratesis>
Get two racists in a room together, and you'll get 3 opinions about where the lines between any two given ethnicities begin and end. The very concepts of race and ethnicity are outdated, and it seems they provide many more cons than pros. I imagine the colony would implode over time, due to shifting or vague definitions.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Why would I? I got here legally, not sponging off welfare, and continue to be here legally without a criminal record. Is that an issue?

<Snipped quote>

Not really - I just like to think that there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that some cultures can't assimilate into another, especially if one brings those of that culture en masse, giving them opportunities to segregate themselves from the larger population. As with anything, gradual and controlled is probably the best way forward.

<Snipped quote by ReonenMiruel>
<Snipped quote by ReonenMiruel>
Alright, but where does the ethnostatism come in, and how is it implemented?

I'm not sure if you dont actually know what an ethnostate is or you are just making an exception for yourself.

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

How much of the planet should they share in order to be a moral ethnostate, in your view?

<Snipped quote by catchamber>

Can you name an ethnostate that has imploded over shifting or vague definitions of ethnicity? I'm sure this has happened; human history is replete with failed states but do ethnostates implode over shifting and vague definitions of ethnicity with greater frequency than multiethnic states implode over violence between separate ethnic groups?

However your reply implies a rather large degree of confidence that this will occur. Have ethnostates in the past failed due to shifting and vague definitions of ethnicity that we can say with great confidence that a state must be ethnically heterogeneous in order to be stable?

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Essentially, this is why I said "I'm not sure how far I'd go with that". The main idea is that, as I said above, it's kinda hard to maintain the identity of a place unless the people that are coming in are willing to assimilate into the culture - and therefore values - of that place. Unfortunately, the places we are talking is predominantly white at the moment, and turning that into anything else - barring a slow process at the end of which I really couldn't give a damn if everyone's skin color is equivalent to a neon sign - would be a mistake.

<Snipped quote by Kratesis>

Yes this actually happens constantly, because race and to a larger extent ethnicity is arbitrary, 'ethno-states' are barely ever realised. America is a perfect example, they still cant settle on the lines on what a white person is.

The Irish, Italians, Catholics, Swedes, and a bunch of other groups youd consider white were not always included in that category making an 'ethno-state' pretty damn impossible by any working standard. And then even today there is split opinion over the whiteness of white hispanics, jews, and various arab and medeterrianian groups who may or may not look pretty caucasian.

But the U.S. is complicated right? Lets have a more 'homogenus' example, maybe somehwere like china, or india. They seem like natural ethnostates right?

Well China has around 50 different ethnicities, india has close to a couple hundred, which they can group and recognise but to the westerners eye they probably seem like on race per country.

If you want to go by any working definition of ethnicity, there are very very few ethnostates in the world today, and even places like japan cant qualify when they are encouraging imigration to support their low workforce and stunted birth rates.

Okay so what is your claim here? That ethnostates are so rare we don't know of any and thus we can't say anything about what an ethnostate is because they never existed? The true ethnostate has never been tried?

<Snipped quote by Kratesis>
Get two racists in a room together, and you'll get 3 opinions about where the lines between any two given ethnicities begin and end. The very concepts of race and ethnicity are outdated, and it seems they provide many more cons than pros. I imagine the colony would implode over time, due to shifting or vague definitions.

<Snipped quote by catchamber>

But when it's time to give free shit to blacks and amerindians ethnicity is a simple thing to define.

Richard Spencer does say that america used to be an ethnostate or at least close to one because it was more than 95% white.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Richard Spencer is a moron. Almost 25% of the population was black in 1776.

......Granted, I'm not sure it counts as 'diversity' when 90% are literally enslaved, I'm just saying Spencer is a moron.

<Snipped quote by ReonenMiruel>

So help me understand what you mean then, you ARE a civic nationalist, and not a ethno-nationalist.

And you are happy with non whites coming into white countries as long as they assimilate and it happens gradually?

And how do you feel about white immigration to white counties, like greeks and italians in australia?