>>12933549This is such a fucking cringe and retarded misinterpretation of history.
This is simplified but I ran out of characters & didnt want to make 2 posts:
(ethno)nationalism came about in the 1750s or so as a way to unite people into self-rule. It was usually based around language, culture, history, and identity. The idea was for each 'people' to have their own country, rather than one empire ruling a bunch of different groups. It united some states, like the german states that used to go to war over religion. They were finally united (sans Austria) into Germany in the 1860s. It also tore apart empires like the ottoman empire, giving serbs, greeks etc. a homeland that they ruled themselves.
Some movements that went counter to this idea of nationalism were soviets and nazis.
Soviets called people 'racist' for identifying as their nationality rather than their class. "How dare you stand up for Hungarian independence you racist! You must submit to the iron fist of communism!"
Nazism was similar to nationalism, but perverted. Rather than being united by a shared culture, language and heritage, they wanted their people to be united by 'race', meaning remove other races (slavs, jews, gypsies, etc), and force other nationalities with similar characteristics into their nation (dutch, danish, norwegians, swedes, etc).
Nationalism lead a lot of the map redrawing from the 1750s to today. Each group got to rule their own nation, no more struggles for independence, or resenting that you were ruled by another group. This was generally considered to be a positive force until the 1960s or so, when America realized they were running out of babies. Less people meant more expensive labour and we couldn't have that. They needed a way to import people, but this would obviously push us back down the path toward ethnic conflict.
So they decided diversity was great, and that all sorts of different people could live together happily, and you're not allowed to question it.
