>>22116862>but the nation-state really is a 18th/19th-century idea.It isn't really though. All that changed in the 18th/19th century was that people started to see themselves as part of a larger extended family than they did in the past.
>Before that it was all kings and crowns and nobles and aristocratic land holdings.Which is just a nation-state but on a smaller scale. Instead of the state being the property of the french people as an extended family, it was the property of the house of bourbon as an extended family. In both cases the state existed to serve the interests of an extended family, it's just that in the 18th/19th century more people saw themselves as extended family. It's no different from how at some points in our cultural history we considered second cousins etc to be "family", while at other points in our cultural history we considered second cousins etc to be "strangers".
This highlights the core issue with the anti-racism religion. If genetic priority and exclusivity is morally wrong then family must logically be more immoral than racism because family is a more genetically exclusive category than race. Family excludes more people than race, therefore if we punish people for racism, we should logically punish people even more for having families.
