NationStates Jolt Archive

Has the United States become a nation in the political science sense of the term, a group of people tied together by common religious, linguistic, cultural and ideological ties?

Or is it a conglomeration of distinct peoples sharing a common country but with deep differences?


In my opinion it is more to the latter. The protestant WASP core of the United States may constitute an american nationality if you want to call it that, but this only makes up like 50 percent of the country. Furthermore, the country is steadily de-Waspifying as Latinos and others make up more and more of the population. And while I have no evidence to back this up, I believe that telecommunications and cheap airline tickets will cause today's immigrants to remain more conected to their homelands and cause them to integrate much slower than those of the past.

Some poli-sci nerd will probably do a better job with this (so, of course I lash out to compensate for my inadequiecies, thus prompting psychology nerds, and since I can't spell, spelling nerds....anyway.....)

The common religous thing is supposed to be that we all believe in the freedom of religion, to believe what ever we want and (this is where people have problems) that no one religon is treated preferentially.

Lingusticly, it's english. Not everyone speaks it, but everything is done in it, so...

Despite what the cynical nattering neighbobs of negativity tell you, america has a culture. That's it's hybrid by nature does not diminish it.

Ideologically it's supposed to be freedom and democracy. How that freedom and democracy is interpreted and used is up for discusion and is what fuels the democracy.

So with that I think we qualify. We don't have to agree to be a nation.

Depends on where you are I guess.

In my tiny world I interact with transplanted Hindu, various Muslims(ie Pakistan, Saudi), Brits, French, Africans, South Americans, Poles, a few Russians....

I think we are still a people with their own views of the universe. People always have and always will locate to "like" neighboors.

It may appear that we have deep diferences and call each other commie libs and facist right-wingers but push come to shove, each would help the other if it was needed.

I don't know. Maybe I am just a pollyana about such things.

;)

Ideologically we are a nation: But that is the only true criterion.

I think there is a massive movement of "nationalism" amongst the states; but I do not feel this is actually in line with the foundational ideals of the country as a whole.

That is, the foundation of holding a National Ideology opposing actually becoming a "nation" in the full sense of the word.

Going by the definition? Not by a long shot.

Going by the reality? Definity.

Ideologically we are a nation: But that is the only true criterion.

Pshaw! Language is the most important criterion. French and English speaking canadians both pretty much believe in the same thing liberal democracy and all that, but the two peoples remain sharply divided nations, as evidenced by the perenial referendums for Quebec's independence. Same goes for Basques and probably a bunch of other groups as well.

I say yes for now, no for the future.

America at its birth was virtually a collection of countries engaged in a mutual trade/defense pact. It stayed similar to that till the Civil war where suddenly the Federal government took over. That was the final nail in the coffin of creating the USofA.

America as it exists currently satisfies the idea of a nation, indeed we put the final nail in that coffin when we made it impossible to leave by fighting the Civil War.

In the future however America is showing signs of drifting apart. Based simply on demographics and language use. Spanish is becoming more and more and more common in California/Nevada/Texas areas that its almost mandatory for bus drivers to speak it. All ATMs in my city have a Spanish option and almost all the automated phone service, even the government ones, can be done in Spanish.

Basically I see the borders of America changing and a group new nations emerging from America. How long? Centuries I hope, probably not in my lifetime. But the seeds are showing themselves.

Pshaw! Language is the most important criterion. French and English speaking canadians both pretty much believe in the same thing liberal democracy and all that, but the two peoples remain a sharply divided nation, as evidenced by the perenial referendums for Quebec's independence. Same goes for Basques and probably a bunch of other groups as well.

My former was in refference to the first:

That is, a foundational national ideology opposing actual nation-hood.

And I do not consider Canada, as a whole, any more a "nation" than the US.

Both governments are constructed around a principle of fierce independence of the people (though the principle is slipping amongst the US populace as a whole).

Has the United States become a nation in the political science sense of the term, a group of people tied together by common religious, linguistic, cultural and ideological ties?

Or is it a conglomeration of distinct peoples sharing a common country but with deep differences?


In my opinion it is more to the latter. The protestant WASP core of the United States may constitute an american nationality if you want to call it that, but this only makes up like 50 percent of the country. Furthermore, the country is steadily de-Waspifying as Latinos and others make up more and more of the population. And while I have no evidence to back this up, I believe that telecommunications and cheap airline tickets will cause today's immigrants to remain more conected to their homelands and cause them to integrate much slower than those of the past.

Cannot think of a name and Salvondia said it prettry well (and I am a "Poli-Sci nerd" p)).

Just for grins and giggles, here's the American Spirit political Dictionary (http://www.fast-times.com/politicaldictionary.html) definition of "nation" (and 'nation-state" for completness):

nation - a large group of people bound together by common tradition and culture and usually language. Sometimes used synonymously with state, but this can be misleading, since one state may contain many nations. For example, Great Britain is a state, but contains the English, Scottish, Welsh, and part of the Irish nations. Iraq is a state, but contains three distinct nations: the non-Arab Kurds, the Shi'te Muslims in the south and the Sunnu Muslims who hold power in Baghdad. And single nations may be scattered across many states, as was the case with the Jewish nation which existed in many states before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and is now the case with the Kurds. See also nation state.

nation state - usually used to describe the modern state, but strictly speaking applies only when the whole population of a state feels itself to belong to the same nation. This is certainly more the case now than it was in the nineteenth century and earlier, when large empires, such as Austria-Hungary, were states but contained many nations. But many states today still contain many nations (partly because of the arbitray way that the borders of states were redrawn after both World Wars, and by the colonial powers as they withdrew from Asia and Africa), and with the rise of nationalism that has followed the fall of communism, this has been one of the main reasons for instability in states such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

Sptember 11th proved that we are still a nation. And a damned good one at that. Likewise, the outpouring of individual contributions being made to organizations like the Red Cross to help out when tragedy happens in other places around the world (yeah, I'm talking about the tsunami) only goes to show we aren't all just concerned with when tragedy strikes here at home.

Maybe our government has problems, but show me one that doesn't. People piss me off a lot of the time, and our leaders piss me off even more. But I love this country. And I, like most Americans, would gladly fight to defend it should we ever be called upon to do so. Not all, but most.

One factor you omitted is race. It's understandable why not, since it's such a charged notion, but it is a factor. It's what makes nationality a product of birth rather than choice. That is, a Frenchman who learns Russian to the extent that they forget French, adopts Russian citizenship, converts to the Russian orthodox Church, and adopts Russian culture and ideology would still not be a member of the Russian nation.

Nation is, in fact, a very nebulous term and not one that is easy to pin down. It's used to justify already existing distinctions rather than as a classification system. I'd say race, religion, language and culture are the main determiners (I don't count ideology because it's too fluid and heterogenous) but which trumps which I couldn't really say. People of different races can be part of the same nation, ditto all the other factors.

I think the problem with the word nation, as used today, is that it has become equated with the word state since the idea of "nation states" gained strength in the 20th century. In reality, though, the two are very different. A state is a governmental entity, a nation a group of people. Nation states were bordered areas with their own government whose separateness was defined on the basis of their predominant nation.

In the west, now, the idea of a nation state is becoming less important as populations become more mobile. Western European states may still have dominant nations but they are no longer defining the identity of the state in the same way. Some states, indeed, have never been nation states. Switzerland is the most obvious example, but also Belgium, which is one state with two nations (the Flemmish and the Waloonians) and also the United Kingdom, which is made up of four main nations (Scots, Welsh, Irish and English) with, maybe, the two groups in Northern Ireland constituting separate nationalities.

The younger states, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand et al are not nation states nor were they ever. They were defined, in fact, as the very antithesis of nation states, bordered areas with their own government whose identity was built on the freedom of individuals from any nation to come and take their share of the land.

South American states would also not be nation states, nor would South Africa be. Most of the former African colonies would not count either, though some are moving that way. Asian former colonies do tend to resemble nation states more often, though.

Anyway, I'm rambling. The important point is that the Americans are not a nation, they are an amalgamation of nations. The USA is a state that, in a sense, has evolved beyond the notion of nation states.

Why worry about this? Why the big deal? It's not a bad thing to not be a nation. Quite the contrary, I'd argue. The notion of the nation state directly lead to two world wars and countless other smaller, but no less brutal, conflicts. Defining yourself on notions like nationhood is regressive, a modern state should not be afraid to evolve. We should get over the need to define ourselves. Just be happy saying, in the (paraphrased) words of a one of the greatest geniuses of our time: "We yam what we yam"

One factor you omitted is race. It's understandable why not, since it's such a charged notion, but it is a factor. It's what makes nationality a product of birth rather than choice. That is, a Frenchman who learns Russian to the extent that they forget French, adopts Russian citizenship, converts to the Russian orthodox Church, and adopts Russian culture and ideology would still not be a member of the Russian nation.

Nation is, in fact, a very nebulous term and not one that is easy to pin down. It's used to justify already existing distinctions rather than as a classification system. I'd say race, religion, language and culture are the main determiners (I don't count ideology because it's too fluid and heterogenous) but which trumps which I couldn't really say. People of different races can be part of the same nation, ditto all the other factors.

I think the problem with the word nation, as used today, is that it has become equated with the word state since the idea of "nation states" gained strength in the 20th century. In reality, though, the two are very different. A state is a governmental entity, a nation a group of people. Nation states were bordered areas with their own government whose separateness was defined on the basis of their predominant nation.

In the west, now, the idea of a nation state is becoming less important as populations become more mobile. Western European states may still have dominant nations but they are no longer defining the identity of the state in the same way. Some states, indeed, have never been nation states. Switzerland is the most obvious example, but also Belgium, which is one state with two nations (the Flemmish and the Waloonians) and also the United Kingdom, which is made up of four main nations (Scots, Welsh, Irish and English) with, maybe, the two groups in Northern Ireland constituting separate nationalities.

The younger states, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand et al are not nation states nor were they ever. They were defined, in fact, as the very antithesis of nation states, bordered areas with their own government whose identity was built on the freedom of individuals from any nation to come and take their share of the land.

South American states would also not be nation states, nor would South Africa be. Most of the former African colonies would not count either, though some are moving that way. Asian former colonies do tend to resemble nation states more often, though.

Anyway, I'm rambling. The important point is that the Americans are not a nation, they are an amalgamation of nations. The USA is a state that, in a sense, has evolved beyond the notion of nation states.

Why worry about this? Why the big deal? It's not a bad thing to not be a nation. Quite the contrary, I'd argue. The notion of the nation state directly lead to two world wars and countless other smaller, but no less brutal, conflicts. Defining yourself on notions like nationhood is regressive, a modern state should not be afraid to evolve. We should get over the need to define ourselves. Just be happy saying, in the (paraphrased) words of a one of the greatest geniuses of our time: "We yam what we yam"

Amen brother, preach on.... (sorry)

I agree... The US was, to put it bluntly, designed not to be a nation. And I have found this strict "nationalism" drift through the history to be contrary to our foundational goals as a Federation of states.

One factor you omitted is race. It's understandable why not, since it's such a charged notion, but it is a factor. It's what makes nationality a product of birth rather than choice. That is, a Frenchman who learns Russian to the extent that they forget French, adopts Russian citizenship, converts to the Russian orthodox Church, and adopts Russian culture and ideology would still not be a member of the Russian nation.

Nation is, in fact, a very nebulous term and not one that is easy to pin down. It's used to justify already existing distinctions rather than as a classification system. I'd say race, religion, language and culture are the main determiners (I don't count ideology because it's too fluid and heterogenous) but which trumps which I couldn't really say. People of different races can be part of the same nation, ditto all the other factors.

I think the problem with the word nation, as used today, is that it has become equated with the word state since the idea of "nation states" gained strength in the 20th century. In reality, though, the two are very different. A state is a governmental entity, a nation a group of people. Nation states were bordered areas with their own government whose separateness was defined on the basis of their predominant nation.

In the west, now, the idea of a nation state is becoming less important as populations become more mobile. Western European states may still have dominant nations but they are no longer defining the identity of the state in the same way. Some states, indeed, have never been nation states. Switzerland is the most obvious example, but also Belgium, which is one state with two nations (the Flemmish and the Waloonians) and also the United Kingdom, which is made up of four main nations (Scots, Welsh, Irish and English) with, maybe, the two groups in Northern Ireland constituting separate nationalities.

The younger states, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand et al are not nation states nor were they ever. They were defined, in fact, as the very antithesis of nation states, bordered areas with their own government whose identity was built on the freedom of individuals from any nation to come and take their share of the land.

South American states would also not be nation states, nor would South Africa be. Most of the former African colonies would not count either, though some are moving that way. Asian former colonies do tend to resemble nation states more often, though.

Anyway, I'm rambling. The important point is that the Americans are not a nation, they are an amalgamation of nations. The USA is a state that, in a sense, has evolved beyond the notion of nation states.

Why worry about this? Why the big deal? It's not a bad thing to not be a nation. Quite the contrary, I'd argue. The notion of the nation state directly lead to two world wars and countless other smaller, but no less brutal, conflicts. Defining yourself on notions like nationhood is regressive, a modern state should not be afraid to evolve. We should get over the need to define ourselves. Just be happy saying, in the (paraphrased) words of a one of the greatest geniuses of our time: "We yam what we yam"


I left race out on purpose, since I don't think it is decicively important. I disagree with you for example, when you say that a Russian speaking, member of the Russian variant of Orthodox Christianity would not be a member of the Russian nation. I would argue religion and language are the two most important factors.

I think race is more of a way nations are internally divided rather than a way in which they are defined. Blacks in the United States for example, came over as slaves and were quickly stripped of their African religions and languages and were forced to adopt protestantism and English. While blacks would not therefore have in my opinion any of the defining charactaristics of a nation they are certainly even today highly segregated and forced down to the bottom of the socio economic ladder, more like an oppressed caste rather than a nation.

I think that many blacks especially in the 60s and 70s looked to create a black nationality as a way to liberate themselves from the oppressive conditions which they suffered in under white chauvanist society as shown by Malcom X and the nation of Islam trying to convert blacks to Islam and give up the whiteman's christian faith, and also new "religious" and lingisustic practices like Kawanza and Ebonics.

This is not to say it is impossible to forge a nation out of a racial or ethnic group. For example the zionist movement brought back the Hebrew language in the 19th century which was for the most part a dead language to forge a Jewish national identity. Nations like Germany or Italy were basically made up of tiny small warring kingdoms until the 1800s. Likewise if Malcom X had his way and most american blacks coverted to their "natural religion" of Islam and adopted Arabic, then they would in my opinion qualify as a nation.

I am far from worried about America not being a nation, rather I think the problem with America is that it has been, and still is trying to create a national identify based around a sick sadistic joy for war and conquest, the American dialect of the English language, and Protestant fundamentalism.

This is evidence of this can be seen for the crazy Stalinist like denunications of such sinister anti war activists as the Dixie chicks who were branded as "anti-American", or the howls of protest from right wingers who are always outraged by the neutral term "happy holidays" instead of the more American "merry christmas", and of course the outrage in places like California over unamerican bilingual educational programs.

New nations with something to prove are the most dangerous in my opinion, like how after Germany was unified they proceeded to beat the crap out of Europe, or how after Ghengis Khan unified the mongol people, his descendents proceeded to ravage Europe and Asia.

Lastly I think there is a real danger that this rather artifical protestant, english speaking "American" nation could be headed for conflict and perhaps civil war with the rapidly growing Spanish speaking, Catholic, Mestizo nation, probably not soon but its a possiblity in 30 or 40 years.

I left race out on purpose, since I don't think it is decicively important. I disagree with you for example, when you say that a Russian speaking, member of the Russian variant of Orthodox Christianity would not be a member of the Russian nation. I would argue religion and language are the two most important factors.


Well, I'm not so sure, but I accept it's not a conclusive example. Perhaps a better example would be from my own country. Most Scots would certainly argue that they are a distinct nation from the English. One could, perhaps, argue this from the basis of language but the fact is that Gaelic is very much a minority language. Certainly there's very, very few people for whom it's the first language. The religious differences are negligible, most people in both nations are Anglican, though of different churches. Race (Celt vs Anglo-Saxon, or more accurately Anglo-Saxon/Roman/Norman hybrid) would seem the most obvious determiner.

Largely agree with the rest of the post.