People should look at this issue the way we currently approach ethnic issues on Earth.
Imagine that 2,000 years from now rather than being nationals we hold citizenships for Planets. So Goshin might be an Earthling but Kaya is a Martian. You share your planet, daily life and relationships with other fellow citizens of your planet (even though your Planet consists of different species, the way you share the same nation but with different ethnic groups today). An "Earthling" would represent a citizen of Earth regardless of "species". In todays world, are you pro-white, or pro-hispanic, or pro-black, or are you pro-American? Do you seek to advance the interests of fellow Americans or fellow Whites only?
So apply this modern day "dilemma" to a futuristic world. Would you support the agenda and interests of your Planet (nation) or your species instead (black, white)?
Wouldn't being pro-human in the future be the equivalent of being pro-white in today's world (and thus frowned upon as "racist" in tomorrows world)?
Thats ideally the way i hoped people approached this topic. So with that in mind, would you be a Human supremacist?
Yup. This is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking about when I answered the question.
My position is much the same about the current national/cultural/ethnic situation as the position I put forward about aliens.
As an American, I share certain intrests with all Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, regional location or cultural differences (presumably...hopefully.) Presumably/hopefully all Americans are with me in desiring that America prosper and remain secure and free, even though we differ on the details of how best to go about this.
Secondarily, I support those nations who are American allies. How much I support them depends on how good an ally they are, and how much we share in terms of national-level values. The US and the UK, Canada and Australia have, for instance, been very close allies for a very long time. We share many similarities of culture, and our differences seem minor when compared to the national values of Iran, NK, Uganda or Somalia.
...Not to say that I have no sympathy for individual persons in Iran, NK, Uganda or Somalia... they are human beings after all. But we have little in common and our nations are hardly allies in most cases; near-enemies in the case of Iran and NK. The potential for major conflicts of intrest put a damper on how much concern I have for those nations. After all, I have to look out for America and our allies first.
Within the borders of the USA, however, I do make certain distinctions. I look out for my family and close friends moreso than others, naturally. My community and my home State are more important to me than, say, California or New York, which are far away and differ a good bit in culture and law. Those who most closely share my values (moral, political, cultural) are going to gain a larger share of my empathy and concern than those whose value systems differ dramatically, or which are actually diametrically opposed.
I care very little about race, really. Most of my concern about race stems from when
others make an issue of distinguishing
themselves from "my kind" due to their own racial identity, especially if they paint "my kind" as an
enemy to their "race". Louis Farrakhan is an American, in name at least, but frankly I don't give a fig about him; ditto Fred Phelps for other but similar reasons (both distinguish "his people" from "my people" and willfully create an enmity over the differences). If someone chooses to make me their enemy because I appear to be caucasian (which I'm not entirely)... well they've drawn their own line. Ditto other distinctions, whether religious (Fred Phelps), political or otherwise. I prefer to live in peace but when someone arbitrarily declares me their enemy they're kinda asking for it. :mrgreen: