Similarly, the existence of Indian territory in the US and Canada is a concession to native American/Indian/First Nation nationalism.
The what now?
Are those a thing we still believe actually exist in any meaningful respect?
You clearly have no idea what a nation-state means. The post-colonial arbitrarily drawn territories are not nation-states. They are the opposite of nation-states. If they were nation-states they would have been drawn according to the territories of the nations who lived there.
Ok, so you're using the word nation to differentiate between a state as a formal entity and a nation as a cultural group. I didn't recognize that.
I'm....... not opposed to the existence of cultural groups. That's kinda silly. The crux of my argument is that the corrolation between states as formal entities and the independence/self-governance of cultural groups is pretty fucked up and I don't see much argument for it.
I'm opposed to the existence of states as formal entities and the existence of a single global government both.
IMO, it's communities that should govern themselves, communities being based on groupings of people that actually interact or whose behaviors have material consequences for each other. And it should be recognized that communities are fluid things, and no one person belongs exclusively to a single one. And people should be able to move/associate freely with one another.
But I'm an anarchist.