Rees Davies discusses the inevitable and necessary ethnic, religious, and custom components which served as the forging elements of the Western "nation-states". The question is, can modern nation-states transcend this? Should they? Or, are they worth calling "states" at all? Tolkien thought those who used the term should be shot at dawn.
Ethnic homogeneity "was and is" (still) a guarantor of stability. So is stability a legitimate common, public good?
Perhaps one could point out that a kingdom and a people, let alone an Empire, are not the same thing. Ours is a dysfunctional Empire, at best, here in Amerika. Certainly no kingdom. Many peoples, many tongues would be a blessing to a Holy Roman Empire, a curse to a late phase capitalistic technopolity (masquerading as Empire) such as our land. America will never be a "country" or a "nation" like others, more of a commonwealth. But the very idea has been undermined by decades of political attacks and squandering.
I am convinced that ethnicity can still contribute as a "vehicle" to transcendent aims. It is not the most important point in a man's makeup, but it is not meaningless either. However, it is probably right to say that it is the individual as individual who in some sense is the "focus" or "locus" of truth. Will this re-emphasize "race" even with the official dogma attempting to circumvent it? Or will "race" cease to exist? Or will there be a new "race" that evolves? The latter (I think) may be the strongest, and least beneficial, possibility, at least in the short run.