by Stormraaf » Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:51 am
It would be purposeful to distinguish between the concepts of nation and state. One can champion nationalism as the aspirations of one's people to acquire a state, and for nationalists the possession of a nation state is a noble ideal, but the two terms shouldn't be equated.
I'll answer Adam's question from a different angle: as an Afrikaner my pride lies with the (currently stateless) Afrikaner nation, so I'm comfortable with option 2. Furthermore, I find advocating "white" pride to be senseless. Consisting of the Europid race is but an attribute of the ethnicity to which I belong, but so it is for a number of European and New World peoples to whom I owe no allegiance.
A healthy society will be mindful of ethnic realities and fundamentally understand that different races have inherently different natures, and if necessary, take responsibility for the future biological quality of one's ethnicity (think along the lines of the old Morality Act), but our aim wouldn't be to become part of a shapeless white mass, and shouldn't be to identify simply as "white".
Following this reasoning, I rarely find it necessary to speak of being racist/racialist. Terms such as ethnocentric and folkish usually suffice.