Been following some of the controversy re: @VaushV and black nationalism on and off and it seems like at least some of the terms of the debate are too vague at least in the way I've seen things framed so far. So for example:

Is "preserving culture" an important goal or a hopelessly reactionary idea or just sort of neutral? I'd say it depends on what you're trying to preserve it *from* and how you hope to preserve it.

Like, preserving books and paintings from Nazis rampaging around burning "degenerate art" is certainly a mitzvah but worrying about culture being erased through a normal cosmopolitan process of cultural mixing and intermingling is reactionary as hell.

So while I'm sure many people mean things by "black nationalism" that should in no way be equated with "white nationalism" (i.e. Naziism) I do get why anyone talking about culture as if it were something that could be preserved in a jar raises a few eyebrows.

It's not like history (and current global realities) aren't riddled with examples of communitarian guardians of cultural purity playing super-reactionary roles even within very oppressed communities.

Read Bobby Seale's "Seize the Time." The original Black Panthers--hardly apologists for white domination--were very hostile to "cultural nationalism."

But to the extent that what's at issue is preserving the *right* to various forms of cultural expression against everyone from book-burning Nazis to capitalist economic tyrants banning deadlocks from the workplace I totally get the "preserving culture is a progressive goal" view.