Apart from the highly debatable claims about the diminished role f states, there are additional issues that theories f globalization face. For the focus on how globalization negates the very concept f a center and a periphery by generating diasporic public spaces tends to lead to an undertheorizing f the differentiated peripheries, which have disparate relationships with the various centers. This is an undertheorizing f the centers which, United States hegemony not-withstanding, are composed f a number f complexly hierarchized and contending entities, for example, in Scottish--English--Welsh relationships. It is, as well, an undertheorizing f the peripheries which also have complex hierarchical inter-ethnic, cultural, and sometimes racial inter-relationships, first f all within their own borders, then between themselves as peripheries, and, finally, with the various centers.
In other words, in theorizing the undoubtedly new phenomenon f globalization, it is critical not to lose sight f the specifics f this process. There are complex and dynamic patterns f racial, ethnic, cultural, class, and social hierarchies that are being generated within particular societies and on a global scale. Sometimes these generate new hierarchical spaces, but often they reinforce old hegemonies within and between nations, without necessarily undermining the power f nation-states as such.
Thus I have pointed out that globalization, as it restructures societies internally, simultaneously establishes and reinforces an international hierarchy f races, ethnicities, cultures, and nations. Broadly speaking, this hierarchy is based on an international ranking according to political, economic, and cultural prestige and power. This is measured, for example, by such standard economic criteria as per capita gross national product, rates f technical innovativeness, and the obvious consequences that economic and technical dominance have for global military dominance. This global racial-cultural hierarchy places Anglo-American culture at the apex and Sub-Saharan African culture at the base. Hegemony is exercised, first f all, within the complex racial and cultural hierarchies internal to the United States and Europe, and through this route, extends itself globally. Latin, Slavic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hindu, and other cultures (usually with their own complex and dynamic internal cultural, social, economic, and political hierarchies) jostle to occupy intermediate positions between the two extremes.  On occasion they contend with the apex, but at all times they remain determined not to be assimilated into the base, which is itself not uniform. Thus while all non-Anglo cultures and nation-states (including those f transitional economies in Central and Eastern Europe) operate in a general context f globalized subordination, the position f black nationalism in the global system, whether in Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, or the United States, is a very special case. 
In this paper, I question the limits, if any, that the global and local cultural hierarchy places on the assertion f nationalism by local elites who are not from the globally dominant culture but from