NationStates Jolt Archive

In this day and age, what exactly is a nation? How is it defined? Geographical boundaries? This hardly seems accurate.

Is it a people, such as the Roma/Romani people? They are an identifiable people, and could be described as a nation despite not having any independent territory of their own.

Does a nation share a common language? What about the Swiss? They have three official languages.

Is the USA an actual nation? It has many different ethnicities and almost as many languages spoken, none of them official. Does that matter? What about the UK? Its name would suggest that it is not the nation, but made up of multiple nations.

Is nation-hood about being of a certain background? Or is it some hard to define abstract identity?

No idea. The concept is as puzzling to me as patriotism or nationalism...

Really interesting topic - can I slip in some questions of my own?

Could we see nations of convenience like flags of convenience for shipping, will there be virtual nations with no geographical territory?

I tried to explain it once, everybody else here called me a retard.

State = geographical entity. (e.g Finland, Australia)

Nation = 'people'. (e.g Basque, Sami)

Nation-state = a combination of the two - extremely rare. (e.g Japan, Iceland, Swiss at a long shot)

Nation-state = a combination of the two - extremely rare. (e.g Japan, Iceland, Swiss at a long shot)

You can have a virtual nation-state, but it's pretty much impossible for every inhabitant of the state to regard themselves as a member of that nation.

Nation = 'people'. (e.g Basque, Sami)


This bit is what I can't get my head around... what distinguishes people from other people enough to group them as a nation?

This from dictionary.com

na⋅tion[ney-shuhn]

–noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America.
3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.
4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

I think that covers it.

This bit is what I can't get my head around... what distinguishes people from other people enough to group them as a nation?

I would guess that they choose to see themselves as such.

This bit is what I can't get my head around... what distinguishes people from other people enough to group them as a nation?

Personal opinion.

In this day and age, what exactly is a nation? How is it defined? Geographical boundaries? This hardly seems accurate.
Nation, from latin verb nascor(,-eris,natus suum,nasci) "i am born".

Is it a people, such as the Roma/Romani people? Yes they are a nation.

Does a nation share a common language? What about the Swiss? They have three official languages.
Four iirc (lingua gritschuna). Anyway they are a nation: they feel they have a common national identity. Then they also recognize the historical meaning of their different states.

Is the USA an actual nation? I think so, for the same reason of Switzerland.


What about the UK? Its name would suggest that it is not the nation, but made up of multiple nations. I would guess that the UK is a country made of three (or four, depends on how NI feels) different nations.

Is nation-hood about being of a certain background?
Yes, it's almost all about the cultural background you suck up with your milk.

Personal opinion.

So, if I'm of the opinion that I'm French, I'm French? :confused:

So, if I'm of the opinion that I'm French, I'm French? :confused:

Hey we all have a little French in us!:D

Nation-state = a combination of the two - extremely rare. (e.g Japan, Iceland, Swiss at a long shot)

Austria. Czech Republic. Slovakia. Slovenia. Croatia. Poland. Ireland. Portugal. Greece. Malta. Serbia. Montenegro. Albania. Bulgaria. Byelorussia. Lithuania. Latvia. Estonia. Norway. Germany.

(I didn't place here France and Italy because of Tyrol and Alsace-Lorraine).

So, if I'm of the opinion that I'm French, I'm French? :confused:

Well, I guess you need at least a little bit of evidence to back you up.

Germany.

Not even close.

I remember some debate about whether there could be an opt-in global passport, I'd quite like one to be honest, I'm not too fussed.

So, if I'm of the opinion that I'm French, I'm French? :confused:

Only if most french people recognize you as a french, too.

Well, I guess you need at least a little bit of evidence to back you up.

Well, what kind of evidence?
If belonging to a certain group of people is a matter of personal opinion, I could be Swedish or Tunisian...

Well, what kind of evidence?
If belonging to a certain group of people is a matter of personal opinion, I could be Swedish or Tunisian...

That tends not to work because you have to believe it yourself.

Only if most french people recognize you as a french, too.

But who recognises them as French?

That tends not to work because you have to believe it yourself.

Nationality is a religion??? :confused:

Not even close.

Germans recognise themselves as a Volk iirc (you know, Dem deutschen Volke, Einigkeit etc). That would be a good translation of nation. Then they split themselves in different states, just as us italians split ourselves between cities while recognising ourselves (mostly, Tyrol issue) as italians.

Germans recognise themselves as a Volk iirc (you know, Dem deutschen Volke, Einigkeit etc). That would be a good translation of nation. Then they split themselves in different states, just as us italians split ourselves between cities while recognising ourselves (mostly, Tyrol issue) as italians.

Bavaria tends to be a separatist hotspot. There's also the Sorbs.

But who recognises them as French?

People living leeward. Oops, pardon. :p

Nationality is a religion??? :confused:

I said believe it, not believe IN it.

Bavaria tends to be a separatist hotspot. There's also the Sorbs.

The inventors of Sorbetto!:D

Bavaria tends to be a separatist hotspot. There's also the Sorbs.

Separatist??? Since when? Most certainly not in the last 30 years, I can personally vouch for that.
The Sorbs see themselves as German.

I said believe it, not believe IN it.

Doesn't believing to be something automatically mean you believe in the existence of whatever you believe yourself to be?

Doesn't believing to be something automatically mean you believe in the existence of whatever you believe yourself to be?

uuuuhhhh........ yes. Definitely so.

Separatist??? Since when? Most certainly not in the last 30 years, I can personally vouch for that.
The Sorbs see themselves as German.

Lots of Bavarians still see themselves as distinct from Germans.

Lots of Bavarians still see themselves as distinct from Germans.

So do lots of Nidersachsen, lots of Franken, lots of Hessen and most certainly lots of Friesen.
That doesn't make them separatist.

So do lots of Nidersachsen, lots of Franken, lots of Hessen and most certainly lots of Friesen.
That doesn't make them separatist.

Well, that's nation.

...and most certainly lots of Friesen.

Especially the cows.

Well, that's nation.

Right... so I'm a nation, then?

Especially the cows.

And Otto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Waalkes).

This bit is what I can't get my head around... what distinguishes people from other people enough to group them as a nation?

Perhaps culture?

This bit is what I can't get my head around... what distinguishes people from other people enough to group them as a nation?
Sense of self identity mainly. A bunch of factors - linguistics, heritage, culture, history, possible persecution - things like that. It's self defined, in that no 'outsider' can tell them who they are or aren't.

Austria.
Significant percentage of Germans in Austria

Czech Republic.
Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians.

Slovakia.
Hungarians

Slovenia.
Serbs, Croats, Bosnians etc.

Croatia.
Pick a neighbouring Balkan state - I'm sure there are a significant amount in Croatia.

Poland.
Significant mix of minorities - although given it's borders have been shunted around so much in the past 80 years, that's not surprising.

Ireland.
One of the most culturally diverse European states?

Portugal.
Yes.

Greece.
Macedones, Albanians etc.

Malta.
Maybe - if you pick a tiny state then the odds of it being homogenous are high.

Serbia. Montenegro. Albania. Bulgaria. Byelorussia. Lithuania. Latvia. Estonia.
No to all these.

Norway.
Sami

Germany.
Turks.

Separatist??? Since when? Most certainly not in the last 30 years, I can personally vouch for that.
The Sorbs see themselves as German.

I would say separatist is a bit of an exaggeration. Certainly though, there was quite a bit of Bavarian pride and identity in evidence when I visited. Not nearly enough to be like "We are splitting from Germany" though.

Perhaps culture?

"Culture", "nation" and "people" are all very squishy words... they seem to clearly define something, but as soon as you start looking carefully, you find that they can mean everything and nothing. Which makes them so uniquely suited for demagogues and politicians.

I would say separatist is a bit of an exaggeration. Certainly though, there was quite a bit of Bavarian pride and identity in evidence when I visited. Not nearly enough to be like "We are splitting from Germany" though.

True, but you'll find that absolutely everywhere in Germany. If you asked people from my home town, they'd be several things before being German (Hainer, Bamberger, Oberfranken, Franken, Bayern... German, pretty much in that order).

Lots of Bavarians still see themselves as distinct from Germans.
That makes as much sense as saying that humans see themselves as distinct from mammals.
I've lived in Bavaria for quite a while and I've never heard of anything resembling a "separatist movement". Actually I've yet to meet a Bavarian considering him/herself "not German". And even if there were any, it's probably safe to say that they'll be treated just like any other mentally deranged person.

PS: My basic definition of the word nation would be: Any reasonably large group of people sharing ideas they call "nationalism".

(I didn't place here France and Italy because of Tyrol and Alsace-Lorraine).

Brittany as well, for France. The Breton are almost as bad as the Texans when it comes to flag fetishes.

It's arbitrarily defined by whomever you choose to ask.

Austria. Czech Republic. Slovakia. Slovenia. Croatia. Poland. Ireland. Portugal. Greece. Malta. Serbia. Montenegro. Albania. Bulgaria. Byelorussia. Lithuania. Latvia. Estonia. Norway. Germany.

(I didn't place here France and Italy because of Tyrol and Alsace-Lorraine).

Eh? Czech Republic...
Wait that I tell my mother, no more smoked chicken with Znojemske okurky for you.
Moravians resent being lumped together with those western moravians in Prague ;)
Those southern moravians in Vienna and eastern moravians in Bratislava are more akin to us.

Brittany as well, for France. The Breton are almost as bad as the Texans when it comes to flag fetishes.

Not even Brittany or Alsace - think about the Algerian, Tunisian, and other African ex-colonials.

"Culture", "nation" and "people" are all very squishy words... they seem to clearly define something, but as soon as you start looking carefully, you find that they can mean everything and nothing. Which makes them so uniquely suited for demagogues and politicians.

The edges seem to be quite blurry. And is someone's nation what they identify as primarily? That would mean that California (specifically the San Francisco Bay Area) is my nation more than the USA is.

That makes as much sense as saying that humans see themselves as distinct from mammals.
I've lived in Bavaria for quite a while and I've never heard of anything resembling a "separatist movement". Actually I've yet to meet a Bavarian considering him/herself "not German". And even if there were any, it's probably safe to say that they'll be treated just like any other mentally deranged person.

PS: My basic definition of the word nation would be: Any reasonably large group of people sharing ideas they call "nationalism".

Nationalism has a bit of a negative connotation. I identify as being part of a nation, but I would not call myself a nationalist.

The edges seem to be quite blurry. And is someone's nation what they identify as primarily? That would mean that California (specifically the San Francisco Bay Area) is my nation more than the USA is.

I don't know.
I've had hours of discussion on the subject, without getting any closer to clear understanding.
From what I can tell, it's more or less a gut-thing for most people, and when asked for some rational explanation, words like culture and nation are being dragged out and punched into the desired form.

"Culture", "nation" and "people" are all very squishy words... they seem to clearly define something, but as soon as you start looking carefully, you find that they can mean everything and nothing. Which makes them so uniquely suited for demagogues and politicians.

Which is why we have things like dictionary's.

Which is why we have things like dictionary's.

True, but they can only define so much... really, what would you say your culture is? And do you really fully identify with it?

True, but they can only define so much... really, what would you say your culture is? And do you really fully identify with it?

Well culture is the way in which those born in one place act in a similar fashion, and the shared values that we hold. We cannot help but identify with whatever culture we are, it is afterall all around us.

I'm British, and yes I identify myself with Brit culture, I'm also a Londoner and the same is true, and a Southerner, and I feel southern. I'm also a memebr of verious sub-culters, music, faith, philosoher and yes, I identify with each and every culture that I am a memeber of. I must do, I can't help it.

Well culture is the way in which those born in one place act in a similar fashion, and the shared values that we hold. We cannot help but identify with whatever culture we are, it is afterall all around us.

True, but when it comes to defining a nation's culture, this description doesn't apply any more.
And even on the most narrow basis, it only applies somewhat to each individual. Culture does influence us, but then so does our inate characters, our religious beliefs, our education, our tastes in music or literature, and so on and so forth.

I see the whole thing a bit like the concept of race : Yes, people do look different. But genetically, the differences between individuals are far greater than the differences between groups.

I'm British, and yes I identify myself with Brit culture, I'm also a Londoner and the same is true, and a Southerner, and I feel southern. I'm also a memebr of verious sub-culters, music, faith, philosoher and yes, I identify with each and every culture that I am a memeber of. I must do, I can't help it.

So would you as a Brit automatically identify with someone, from, say Wales?
Would you as a Southerner automatically identify with Jamie Oliver?

True, but when it comes to defining a nation's culture, this description doesn't apply any more.
And even on the most narrow basis, it only applies somewhat to each individual. Culture does influence us, but then so does our inate characters, our religious beliefs, our education, our tastes in music or literature, and so on and so forth.

I see the whole thing a bit like the concept of race : Yes, people do look different. But genetically, the differences between individuals are far greater than the differences between groups.

Well I don't know. I understand what you mean, but I sorta disagree. There is somthing samey about every Brit that you meet, not just the accent but something. Even if you can't really put your finger on it.

It might be the manors, or the way tut at queue jumpers, it may be love/hate of the rain, whatever it is I would say that it is part of our culture.

The same is true for people everywhere.

So would you as a Brit automatically identify with someone, from, say Wales?
Would you as a Southerner automatically identify with Jamie Oliver?

Part of me yes, the British part. The English part though would notice the differances.

And yes I do identify with Jamie, he has a certian cokney charm thing going on that gives me that warm feeling inside, like being away from home, and bumping into a nieghbour in the pub.

I'm not particularly patriotic, and I have grown to detest London(it's an inner city thing really), but each and everytime I hear a London accent, it makes me happy, it makes me feel...umm pridefull, and yet I really don't know why.

In this day and age, what exactly is a nation? How is it defined? Geographical boundaries? This hardly seems accurate.

Is it a people, such as the Roma/Romani people? They are an identifiable people, and could be described as a nation despite not having any independent territory of their own.

Does a nation share a common language? What about the Swiss? They have three official languages.

Is the USA an actual nation? It has many different ethnicities and almost as many languages spoken, none of them official. Does that matter? What about the UK? Its name would suggest that it is not the nation, but made up of multiple nations.

Is nation-hood about being of a certain background? Or is it some hard to define abstract identity?

Hard one, Calli. My definition of what a nation is, or what I thought it was, has been challenged and changed, several times, since I became a member of NSG.

According to this site (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nation), nation is:
1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: "Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity" Robert Conquest.
4. a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

Sense of self identity... (snippity snippity snap)


Are you aware of the difference between the presence of a minority and not being a nation-state? Keep in mind that the first modern nation-state was France (with minorities since the beginning).

The nation states purpose is to expand its interest against those outside the nation state, by means of war, diplomacy, and intrigue.
That is all.

Which is why we have things like dictionary's.

Or dictionaries like it's written in them. Gotcha! :p

Or dictionaries like it's written in them. Gotcha! :p

Meh! dyslexic, like 2 spiel foneticlee!:D

According to this site (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nation), nation is:
1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: "Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity" Robert Conquest.
4. a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

1, 2 and 4b are totally wrong, I think. 3 is the most accurate, and I'd say it includes 4a.

Meh! dyslexic, like 2 spiel foneticlee!:D

The Grammar Nazi from Southern Europe has stricken again!

The Grammar Nazi from Southern Europe has stricken again!

Bwahahahah!

1, 2 and 4b are totally wrong, I think. 3 is the most accurate, and I'd say it includes 4a.

Tsk tsk! That's not what the dictionary says, Ris.:mad:

But as I already posted, my concept of what a nation is has been challenged and modified too many times already while being here.

To me, any country that shared a common language and defined political structure with a common monetary unit and the like was a nation. But apparently that's not it.:tongue:

BTW
I actually make a distinction based on culinary habits...
There is no such thing as Italian cuisine (come on, make my day, tell me I'm wrong) therefore there is no such thing as an Italian Nation.

Are you aware of the difference between the presence of a minority and not being a nation-state? Keep in mind that the first modern nation-state was France (with minorities since the beginning).

Certainly at some point if theres enough differentness, it stops being a nation, however I think its more important to consider how culturally similar the people may be, not their ethnicity, saying there are x Croats in Slovenia doesn't mean much without the context of their cultural leanings. The US for example has a lot of different groups but for the most part we're all Americans. I would say for something to not be a nation, there would have to be at least a majority of people who don't identify with the common "nation". For example if half of the people living in Germany didn't think they were German, then I'd say they probably weren't a nation-state anymore.

The Grammar Nazi from Southern Europe has stricken again!

Struck not stricken - points out his northern equivalent :p

Tsk tsk! That's not what the dictionary says, Ris.:mad:
I can't help if the dictionary is stupid and doesn't know etymology. I win, heil myself... oops...:D

I can't help if the dictionary is stupid and doesn't know etymology. I win, heil myself... oops...:D

Hehehe.:D

Hard one, Calli. My definition of what a nation is, or what I thought it was, has been challenged and changed, several times, since I became a member of NSG.

According to this site (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nation), nation is:
1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: "Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity" Robert Conquest.
4. a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

I tend to go with what Cabra called the "gut-feeling." I know it's irrational.

But then, I've never had any objections to being irrational. I'd say I'm one of NSG's least rational posters.

Struck not stricken - points out his northern equivalent :p

Actually the paradigm of "strike" goes strick/struck/struck OR stricken, and I prefer the latter. It looks more... well... participial-like.

Actually the paradigm of "strike" goes strick/struck/struck OR stricken, and I prefer the latter. It looks more... well... participial-like.

Very archaic

But then, I've never had any objections to being irrational. I'd say I'm one of NSG's least rational posters.

Oh, I know. I've noticed already. That's why we can relate so well when posting.:D

Are you aware of the difference between the presence of a minority and not being a nation-state?
The presence of more than one nation in a state, makes the state multi-national. A nation state is one geographical entity (state) with one nation (ethnic/cultural 'people')

Keep in mind that the first modern nation-state was France (with minorities since the beginning).
Source?

Very archaic
I'm notorious for that.

I'm notorious for that.

'Cos you're Italian. *nod*

:p

Oh, I know. I've noticed already. That's why we can relate so well when posting.:D

I think so. That and we're both animu-nerds. Maybe that's an outgrowth of our irrationality.

The presence of more than one nation in a state, makes the state multi-national. A nation state is one geographical entity (state) with one nation (ethnic/cultural 'people')

You're being extremely strict, I think. That wasn't even achieved by the Third Reich.

Source?
Medieval and modern history at high school.

'Cos you're Italian. *nod*

:p

No, it's because I learned english from Tolkien's books. I'm entirely self-learned in english.

You're being extremely strict, I think. That wasn't even achieved by the Third Reich.
I'm not being strict - that's the common political science definition.

Medieval and modern history at high school.
Right. When did France become a 'modern nation state' date wise according to your high school history courses?

Right. When did France become a 'modern nation state' date wise according to your high school history courses?

I'm no historian, but my guess is when Louis XIV said "L'etat, c'est moi!"

I'm no historian, but my guess is when Louis XIV said "L'etat, c'est moi!"

I'd agree that's when France indeed became a modern state. A modern nation state on the other hand......

No, it's because I learned english from Tolkien's books. I'm entirely self-learned in English.

In altre parole, si sono autodidatta.

I think so. That and we're both animu-nerds. Maybe that's an outgrowth of our irrationality.

So desu yo. :p

In altre parole, si sono autodidatta.

In altre parole sì, sono autodidatta. Perfetto.

In altre parole, si sono autodidatta.

I can almost make that out, something about being self taught? Autodidatta gives it away.

I'd agree that's when France indeed became a modern state. A modern nation state on the other hand......

It was already a nation. And it became (even before Louis XIV: I'd say shortly after the 100-years War) a state based on nationality, which I think is a good definition of nation-state. Maybe not so strict as yours.

In altre parole sì, sono autodidatta. Perfetto.

Gran parte del mio inglese e il mio giapponese è stato anche imparato dai libri di lettura e l'ascolto di musica su queste lingue. Ecco perché avete le mie congratulazioni. Non tutti possono fare lo stesso.

It was already a nation. And it became (even before Louis XIV: I'd say shortly after the 100-years War) a state based on nationality, which I think is a good definition of nation-state.
Nationality is a political/state construct. Residency, tests, length of time in the state - how does that equate to a cultural or ethnic sense of identity like the Sami, the Basques, the Maori? Because I simply live in the United States for several years and gain citizenship - how does that make me American, and no longer Irish?

Maybe not so strict as yours.
It's not my definition. It's simply the standard political science definition used by ethno-territorial academics.

E' diventato un discorso italiano, questo?

So desu yo. :p

Lol. That reminds me... I need to get my ticket for Fanimecon... I'm such a nerd...

Gran parte del mio inglese e il mio giapponese è stato anche imparato dai libri di lettura e l'ascolto di musica su queste lingue. Ecco perché avete le mie congratulazioni. Non tutti possono fare lo stesso.

Gran parte... è stata (parte is feminine).

A better wording would be:

"Ho imparato gran parte del mio inglese e del mio giapponese anche sui libri di lettura, e con l'ascolto di musica in queste lingue."

Your italian is almost perfect. Keep it up!

Gran parte del mio inglese e il mio giapponese è stato anche imparato dai libri di lettura e l'ascolto di musica su queste lingue. Ecco perché avete le mie congratulazioni. Non tutti possono fare lo stesso.
Alright, alright. Congratulations. :p

EDIT: Yay! I can now post!

E' diventato un discorso italiano, questo?

Claro que si.

(now I'll moderate myself and get back to topic, I promise)

E' diventato un discorso italiano, questo?

Non capisco.:confused:

Gran parte... è stata (parte is feminine).

A better wording would be:

"Ho imparato gran parte del mio inglese e del mio giapponese anche sui libri di lettura, e con l'ascolto di musica in queste lingue."

Your italian is almost perfect. Keep it up!

:$
Grazie. Le autorità spagnole hanno reso più facile capire le altre lingue romanze, come l'italiano. Ma non ho completa scioltezza nella lingua e che mi preoccupa molto.

I'm too much of a perfectionist when it comes to langauges.:D

To the OP
I repeat that IMO the best indicator of a people being a nation is their food culture.
You eat/drink like me? We are a nation.
You eat/drink THAT?!?! Go back to your country you beast.
Panslavism is actually very much based on this. I was eating and exchanging recepees on fermented (not pickled) gerkins with poles not so long ago.

Political authority over a given area.
But it can also mean a collection of similar peoples etc...

Words can have more than one meaning.

Austria. Czech Republic. Slovakia. Slovenia. Croatia. Poland. Ireland. Portugal. Greece. Malta. Serbia. Montenegro. Albania. Bulgaria. Byelorussia. Lithuania. Latvia. Estonia. Norway. Germany.

(I didn't place here France and Italy because of Tyrol and Alsace-Lorraine).

I think you'll find there are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_ireland) two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_ireland) Irish states.

As a member of several states, but member of no nation, I find it pretty easy to identify: a people united by a common history, language, ethnicity and/or religion. Canada has many nations. Most of them are aboriginal, though we also have the Québecois, and those old school European settlers who learnt English or sopke it already who arrived and displaced the native nations. This latter group we shall call the Canadian nation. Then we have the immigrants, who belong to no nation, though they often get assimiliated into the Canadian nation after a few generations. This also happens with the Quebecois, but much more slowly. People descended from the first black slaves that arrived with the French are still not considered Quebecois, even though they have the same history, language and religion. Because they're black.

To the OP
I repeat that IMO the best indicator of a people being a nation is their food culture.
You eat/drink like me? We are a nation.
You eat/drink THAT?!?! Go back to your country you beast.
Panslavism is actually very much based on this. I was eating and exchanging recepees on fermented (not pickled) gerkins with poles not so long ago.

I was under the same impression. I thought Spain was a nation. But according to the definition, Spain isn't a nation, it's just a country. But we basically eat the same things and drink the same things. Of course, if one takes into consideration nationalism and the like... *sighs*

I was under the same impression. I thought Spain was a nation. But according to the definition, Spain isn't a nation, it's just a country. But we basically eat the same things and drink the same things. Of course, if one takes into consideration nationalism and the like... *sighs*

Yet US Americans speak of an American nation...
Must be envy...

*hands Nanatsu a fermented gerkin... Try it, it's almost better than tacos ;)

To the OP
I repeat that IMO the best indicator of a people being a nation is their food culture.
You eat/drink like me? We are a nation.
You eat/drink THAT?!?! Go back to your country you beast.
Panslavism is actually very much based on this. I was eating and exchanging recepees on fermented (not pickled) gerkins with poles not so long ago.

Hmm... I am most definitely neither German nor Irish, then....

It's definitely not just food. If it was, I'd probably be American.

Yet US Americans speak of an American nation...
Must be envy...

*hands Nanatsu a fermented gerkin... Try it, it's almost better than tacos ;)

But if dictionary definitions are correct, the US would be one odd case indeed. I mean, people there don't always eat the same or drink the same. And then you have those who still remain, descendents of Native Americans. If the example of Canada is any indication, then the US would fall into the nation category because of it's native inhabitants (who seem not to be taken into consideration at all). And then we have the language issue. According to some posters here, English is not the official language of the US...

I'm so so confused. :(

*takes fermented gerkin and chews on it thoughtfully*

I think you'll find there are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_ireland) two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_ireland) Irish states.

Which causes me to think:

to make a state a nationstate, all nationals must be within, or no foreigners (or just small minorities thereof) must be within? or both?

'cause in the first case, the Republic of Ireland isn't a nationstate. in the second, it is.

I'd drop the "all nationals must be within". Because the US would count as an Irish state.

But if dictionary definitions are correct, the US would be one odd case indeed. I mean, people there don't always eat the same or drink the same. And then you have those who still remain, descendents of Native Americans. If the example of Canada is any indication, then the US would fall into the nation category because of it's native inhabitants (who seem not to be taken into consideration at all). And then we have the language issue. According to some posters here, English is not the official language of the US...

I'm so so confused. :(

*takes fermented gerkin and chews on it thoughtfully*
I think the term depends on the people/country it's being applied to.

For example, I'd say that there is an American nation and many Presidents and American leaders have tried to define this as holding the same ideology dear, regardless of religion/race/etc; Freedom, liberty, property and rugged individualism, those who believe in the American dream. It was this sort of rhetoric that inspired many a leader to claim things like this:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.

Having said that, I realize that's a very American concept and I will state that many (if not most) European countries consider themselves a nation-state in some ways or another. Hell, many of them were founded on Nationalism, that that a nation came together to form a state for themselves as a people.

I know in Germany for example, someone argued that it was a nation-state and another countered by saying "but Turks live there!"......so is Germany not a nation-state because Turks live there? Well, the answer in German would be jein. Indeed recently Germany has tried to become a more multi-national soceity, but many Turks, even those having been born in Germany, speaking no other language but German and living no other life outside of Germany, are not considered German (many do not even have citizenship, also). They are still Turks, except that they aren't real Turks. They are in some kind of limbo. That really defines a Nation-State in my opinion. People in the U.S. for example, who's parents may come from Sweden and speak with a ridiculous sounding accent or from some backwards Middle Eastern shithole society, are still considered American because they are born here and speak English and were raised (hopefully) on the values, ideals and culture of this nation. Americans are a flexible nationality, but old-stock Europeans are not, I believe.

Germany also (last time I checked) still bases it's citizenship on blood lines, (thus why many Turks and such can still not be citizens even after living in Germany for multiple generations) even for "Germans" (or their descendents) who live outside of Germany, like in Russia or Kazahkstan, for example(Wolgadeutsche).

Also, in Germany, even among young kids who have grown up with other kids from foreign families or backgrounds, Turks and such are still called 'Ausländer', which would translate to something like "someone not of my land", from the Ausland (anything not Germany). In English there isn't even a exact word for this concept or feeling, and the closest I can think of is not-domestic or international...but it doesn't have the same meaning, really.

I was under the same impression. I thought Spain was a nation. But according to the definition, Spain isn't a nation, it's just a country. But we basically eat the same things and drink the same things. Of course, if one takes into consideration nationalism and the like... *sighs*
Spain is usually given as the perfect example in it's ethnic make up - it is multi national in that there exists the Basque nation, the Catalan nation, the Asturians, the Galicians, etc. Your identity can be Spanish, while still being first Navarrese, or first Andalucian - then Spanish.

But if dictionary definitions are correct, the US would be one odd case indeed. I mean, people there don't always eat the same or drink the same. And then you have those who still remain, descendents of Native Americans. If the example of Canada is any indication, then the US would fall into the nation category because of it's native inhabitants (who seem not to be taken into consideration at all). And then we have the language issue. According to some posters here, English is not the official language of the US...
English isn't the official language of the United States.

The US is the perfect example of what is not a nation state - all you have to do is point to the Native Americans/Amerindians - then you can deal with the rest of the immigrant populations. Melting pot yes, multi national yes - single nation? Not in the slightest.



to make a state a nationstate, all nationals must be within,
Essentially. (let me clarify - by 'national' I'm not talking about someone who holds a passport, I'm talking about someone who is a member of that specific 'nation')

or no foreigners (or just small minorities thereof) must be within? or both?
As ethnically and culturally homogenous as a place can be - see Japan.

English isn't the official language of the United States.
No it's not the official language of America as far as being technical goes, but it is our national language and de-facto language. It is the language of government, media, education, business and culture in our country and the language we demand our immigrants learn should they wish to become a part of the American nation.

So English still is our language.

No it's not the official language of America as far as being technical goes, but it is our national language and de-facto language. It is the language of government, media, education, business and culture in our country and the language we demand our immigrants learn should they wish to become a part of the American nation.

So English still is our language.

I know, but since I was responding to this According to some posters here, English is not the official language of the US...

I felt I would clarify that indeed, English is not the official language of the United States, and that in a nice quirk, it's one of the few countries I can think of that doesn't list an official language.

I know, but since I was responding to this
Indeed.
I felt I would clarify that indeed, English is not the official language of the United States, and that in a nice quirk, it's one of the few countries I can think of that doesn't list an official language.
It should, however, be made our official language, since it already is in all ways but technically.

Indeed recently Germany has tried to become a more multi-national soceity, but many Turks, even those having been born in Germany, speaking no other language but German and living no other life outside of Germany, are not considered German (many do not even have citizenship, also). They are still Turks, except that they aren't real Turks. They are in some kind of limbo. That really defines a Nation-State in my opinion. People in the U.S. for example, who's parents may come from Sweden and speak with a ridiculous sounding accent or from some backwards Middle Eastern shithole society, are still considered American because they are born here and speak English and were raised (hopefully) on the values, ideals and culture of this nation. Americans are a flexible nationality, but old-stock Europeans are not, I believe.

Germany also (last time I checked) still bases it's citizenship on blood lines, (thus why many Turks and such can still not be citizens even after living in Germany for multiple generations) even for "Germans" (or their descendents) who live outside of Germany, like in Russia or Kazahkstan, for example(Wolgadeutsche).

Those people of Turkish origin living in Germany call themselves "Deutschlaender", a translation of a nickname given to them in Turkey.
And I don't know where you got your information about citizenship, but it's outdate by almost a decade : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Turks#Citizenship_issues


Also, in Germany, even among young kids who have grown up with other kids from foreign families or backgrounds, Turks and such are still called 'Ausländer', which would translate to something like "someone not of my land", from the Ausland (anything not Germany). In English there isn't even a exact word for this concept or feeling, and the closest I can think of is not-domestic or international...but it doesn't have the same meaning, really.

The word you're thinking of is "foreigner".

The concept of a nation state is an artificial construction, ones used as a handy tool for kings and despots to calculate their power, now a handy tool for uber nationalists and people like TAI who want to delude themselves that tens, if not hundreds of millions of people who happen to all be within the bounds of artificial lines all share some sort of common culture.

Spain is usually given as the perfect example in it's ethnic make up - it is multi national in that there exists the Basque nation, the Catalan nation, the Asturians, the Galicians, etc. Your identity can be Spanish, while still being first Navarrese, or first Andalucian - then Spanish.

I'm well aware of that, PM. I myself consider myself first an Asturian and then a Spaniard. But since we all speak a common language, Spanish, which is the official language of the state, I thought that solely could amount to considering my country a nation too. Although Spain also recognizes Catalá, Euskera, Leonés, Gallego and assorted regional languages (I must point out that my langauge, Asturian, is still being defended in court to acquire officiality) as part of it's make-up as a country, it still has Spanish as the official language.

English isn't the official language of the United States.

That's a fact that always amazes me because it's the language used by it's government. I always thought it was the official language. I was corrected on it.

The US is the perfect example of what is not a nation state - all you have to do is point to the Native Americans/Amerindians - then you can deal with the rest of the immigrant populations. Melting pot yes, multi national yes - single nation? Not in the slightest.

But wouldn't the getilicium "American" count for something? I mean, yes, there are a lot of immigrants and there are a lot of families that hail from other countries, but I always hear these: Chinese-American, Japanese-American, Mexican-American, African-American. All of these end with something in common, the gent. American. Wouldn't that, right there, amount to consider the US a nation-state?

The concept of a nation state is an artificial construction,
Interesting.
Artificially constructed by whom? Looking at the origins of modern nation-statehood it certainly wasn't the state themselves.

ones used as a handy tool for kings and despots to calculate their power, now a handy tool for uber nationalists and people like TAI who want to delude themselves that tens, if not hundreds of millions of people who happen to all be within the bounds of artificial lines all share some sort of common culture.

I can certainly see where this stems from and would agree with it in certain ways yes.

Interesting.
Artificially constructed by whom? Looking at the origins of modern nation-statehood it certainly wasn't the state themselves.



I can certainly see where this stems from and would agree with it in certain ways yes.

Didn't people like Montesquieu and Rousseau meddle in this quite a bit?

Didn't people like Montesquieu and Rousseau meddle in this quite a bit?

I think Rousseau particularly was very interested in this concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#.22The_Social_Contract.22

I'm well aware of that, PM.
I know, I know, I know. :) I didn't mean to tell you something you were well aware of. Just expanding the point for everyone.

I myself consider myself first an Asturian first and then a Spaniard.
Perfect, which is precisely my point (also precisely why Spain is often used as an example)

But since we all speak a common language, Spanish, which is the official language of the state, I thought solely could amount to considering my country a nation too. Although Spain also recognizes Catalá, Euskera, Gallego and assorted regional languages (I must point out that my langauge, Asturian, is still being defended in court to acquire officiality) as part of it's make-up as a country, it still has Spanish as the official language.
You have one language in common (Castillian), but speak a variety of others. You have regional cultures distinct from each other, but linked tenuously by being within Iberia (and then within Spain). You said it yourself - you identify with Asturias first.... then Spain. You identify with Asturian culture, language, customs, history first. It is this self-identification that gives rise to a common conception of a 'people' or a 'nation'. (Rightly or wrongly, that's the group identifying itself)

But wouldn't the getilicium "American" count for something? I mean, yes, there are a lot of immigrants and there are a lot of families that hail from other countries, but I always hear these: Chinese-American, Japanese-American, Mexican-American, African-American. All of these end with something in common, the gent. American. Wouldn't that, right there, amount to consider the US a nation-state?

No. It only reinforces the concept of multiple nations within one larger state. The very fact you can identify the Native Americans as one nation (and that could be broken down into the individuals tribes in itself... if Neeskia is around she'll probably do that :tongue:) and separate from others, has you acknowledging from the start that there is more than 'one' nation in the United States. Multiple nations, multi national. :)

Those people of Turkish origin living in Germany call themselves "Deutschlaender", a translation of a nickname given to them in Turkey.
They could call themselves Oogelyboogies for all I care, my point was what Germans (inculding teens, not the older generations) call them. They are still often not considered Germans.

And I don't know where you got your information about citizenship, but it's outdate by almost a decade : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Turks#Citizenship_issues
I was speaking mostly about Jus Sanguinis. It's not outdated by almost a decade..even if they started reforming it in 2000, it's been going through reforms (citizenship in Germany) up until 2004 and even since then it said:
As late as 2004, 36 per cent of Turkish citizens living in Germany did not have German nationality despite being born there.[2]

(and this is still only discussing Turks....and they are not the only kind of immigrant in Germany)



[QUOTE]The word you're thinking of is "foreigner".
No. No it's not at all. :rolleyes:

"In English there isn't even a exact word for this concept or feeling, and the closest I can think of is not-domestic or international...but it doesn't have the same meaning, really."

I was talking about the word Ausland and how it's used simply doesn't translate into English except maybe by using international, which still doesn't really have the same meaning or feeling to me.

Edit:
I belive I just threw up in my mouth when I saw this:

:rolleyes::mad::rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Almanturk.jpg

I know, I know, I know. :) I didn't mean to tell you something you were well aware of. Just expanding the point for everyone.

No hurt feeling, mate. ;)

Perfect, which is precisely my point (also precisely why Spain is often used as an example)

I do get it.

You have one language in common (Castillian), but speak a variety of others.

It's Spanish, PM. Castellano or Castillian is considered now another regional language, same as Euskera or Gallego. Just so you know.

You have regional cultures distinct from each other, but linked tenuously by being within Iberia (and then within Spain). You said it yourself - you identify with Asturias first.... then Spain. You identify with Asturian culture, language, customs, history first. It is this self-identification that gives rise to a common conception of a 'people' or a 'nation'. (Rightly or wrongly, that's the group identifying itself)

This type of nationalistic identification, although I don't have a problem with it, is causing the greatest schism in the history of Spain. That's one of the main reasons ETA is there. It wants to see Euskal Herriá (Basuqe Country) free, independent.

But I, being an Asturian, cannot see their intentions as morally wrong. My own priovince would like independence from Spain. I may not like the pain, the bombings or the deaths, but if it were up to me, I would allow Euskal Herriá to be it's own country, vamos, it's own nation. :wink:

No. It only reinforces the concept of multiple nations within one larger state. The very fact you can identify the Native Americans as one nation (and that could be broken down into the individuals tribes in itself... if Neeskia is around she'll probably do that :tongue:) and separate from others, has you acknowledging from the start that there is more than 'one' nation in the United States. Multiple nations, multi national. :)

I understand better now. Thanks.

It's Spanish, PM. Castellano or Castillian is considered now another regional language, same as Euskera or Gallego. Just so you know.
Ah. When I learned Spanish it was known more as Castillian-Spanish to differentiate it from Catalan in particular. Cheers.


This type of nationalistic identification, although I don't have a problem with it, is causing the greatest schism in the history of Spain. That's one of the main reasons ETA is there. It wants to see Euskal Herriá (Basuqe Country) free, independent.
It creates schisms everywhere, you're not alone in that regard!

It creates schisms everywhere, you're not alone in that regard!

Yes, I know. It's happening to Ireland, it is happening to, always, to the Albano-Kosovars. It happens everywhere. I wish it didn't, that's all.

What the....now I'm getting "mexicancupid dating" ads.....

In this day and age, what exactly is a nation? How is it defined? Geographical boundaries? This hardly seems accurate.

Is it a people, such as the Roma/Romani people? They are an identifiable people, and could be described as a nation despite not having any independent territory of their own.

Does a nation share a common language? What about the Swiss? They have three official languages.

Is the USA an actual nation? It has many different ethnicities and almost as many languages spoken, none of them official. Does that matter? What about the UK? Its name would suggest that it is not the nation, but made up of multiple nations.

Is nation-hood about being of a certain background? Or is it some hard to define abstract identity?
Maybe it's both; who says the two are mutually exclusive?

From a geography-based definition-centric perspective, a "nation" is a group of people with common ancestry, culture, languages etc... except those kinds of things aren't even tied to each other, but that's simply distinguishing it from a "state" meaning an independent political unit, which is what people often refer to when talking about a "nation" such as talking about Canada being a "nation" when it's actually a "state" with multiple "nations" within it; so it's actually using words that are technically the opposites in a way.

the problem is the whole "shared culture and values" thing just doesn't work in modern society. I am a Jewish, ivy league educated left wing lawyer who grew up abroad, traveled extensively, and is of polish/russian decent.

What common culture do I share with a right wing evangelical christian farmer in Oklahoma with no formal education past high school, who has never left his home state, and is of dutch decent?

Yet the two of us are both American, but if we define nation as a common culture, ancestry, social norms and morals, we are almost nothing alike. Are we even of the same nation?

the problem is the whole "shared culture and values" thing just doesn't work in modern society. I am a Jewish, ivy league educated left wing lawyer who grew up abroad, traveled extensively, and is of polish/russian decent.

What common culture do I share with a right wing evangelical christian farmer in Oklahoma with no formal education past high school, who has never left his home state, and is of dutch decent?

Yet the two of us are both American, but if we define nation as a common culture, ancestry, social norms and morals, we are almost nothing alike. Are we even of the same nation?

Do you eat hummus?
If yes then you are not ;)

Hmm... I am most definitely neither German nor Irish, then....

Well, some people don't fit this definition just because they are cosmopolitan...

Louis XIV of France

The concept of a nation is so notoriously open to controversy that what is normally forgotten is the fact that a nation is, first and foremost, an idea. It is an idea that springs from the expression of a natural human desire for a community of people with common values and for freedom from dominance over the will and desires of its people in their pursuit of happiness.
I look at it ^that^ way.

Quote modvacuumed.


I noticed TAI that you didn't answer my question. What's wrong, not even you can defend your bullshit anymore?

Quote modvacuumed.


One of those what? Lawyers? People descended from Poles? People who have traveled places outside their hometown? Evil world-controlling J00s?

One of those what? Lawyers? People descended from Poles? People who have traveled places outside their hometown? Evil world-controlling J00s?

left-wing evil world-controlling joo's

left-wing evil world-controlling joo's

Oh noes! :eek2:

left-wing evil world-controlling joo's

just say "jew", the left wing, evil, and world controlling bits are rather redundant.

just say "jew", the left wing, evil, and world controlling bits are rather redundant.

I'll give you the latter two , but there are right wing evil world controlling jews. Think Ayn Rand and Ben Stein.

just say "jew", the left wing, evil, and world controlling bits are rather redundant.

Nah, once you get old enough and retire, you just become evil left-wing grandchildren-controlling j00s. ;)

To the OP
I repeat that IMO the best indicator of a people being a nation is their food culture.
You eat/drink like me? We are a nation.
You eat/drink THAT?!?! Go back to your country you beast.
Panslavism is actually very much based on this. I was eating and exchanging recepees on fermented (not pickled) gerkins with poles not so long ago.
I'm going to go with this one because I like food and it's just as good and just as meaningful as any other definition of "nation."

Before deciding to make nationhood all about snacks, I was going to say that a nation is a political entity equipped to collect taxes or otherwise raise revenue for purposes of providing common services to those who are legally granted membership status. You are a member of a nation if you list it as your primary residence, carry its passport, and pay taxes to it (that last one varies from place to place; for instance, the Principality of Monaco does not collect taxes from its citizens).

Nothing more to it than that, really.

Except for the gerkins, of course.

I think the term depends on the people/country it's being applied to.

For example, I'd say that there is an American nation and many Presidents and American leaders have tried to define this as holding the same ideology dear, regardless of religion/race/etc; Freedom, liberty, property and rugged individualism, those who believe in the American dream. It was this sort of rhetoric that inspired many a leader to claim things like this:
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.
<snip>
Many a leader has been inspired to say stuff like that, eh? I would be interested to see the source link for that quote in order to know WHICH leader actually said those words, because they are a load of shit.

The idea that Americans are balkanized into disparate ethnic enclaves all maintaining separate cultural identities is nonsense. When Americans describe themselves as Irish/German/Italian/African/Korean/etc-American, they are merely using a form of descriptive that provides information telling us what their ancestry is but that they themselves are not foreign born. I know of no Americans who go abroad and, in answer to questions like "What's your nationality?", answer "German-American."

American is the nationality. German-American is descriptive personal information about an individual American.

Painting Americans who recognize their ethnic heritage as disloyal to some imagined "republic" that most Americans cannot even agree exists in one form or another is nothing but the kind of xenophobic bullshit that rightwing nationalists love to spout when fantasizing about the kind of "nation" that makes me start fantasizing about resistance and revolution.

Nationalism -- by which I mean the kind of strict, militant, us-versus-them, salute-the-flag, serve-the-state vision that totalitarianism thrives on -- is absolutely at odds with the very concept of "nation" that the US was founded on, which is all about facilitating individual interests, which includes expression of individual identity (see First Amendment), not about reinforcing group identification; all about questioning the authority of the state, not submitting to it; all about striking out on one's own if need be, not clinging to a group to define oneself.

EDIT: By the way, my ancestors came from Italy (both north and south), Germany, Alsace, and Russia via Poland. When asked about my ethnicity, I describe myself as European-American. Tell me, who am I splitting my loyalty with? The US and... who? The UN?

I thought that a nation was a group of people - like the Cherokee nation, but in these days of multi-culturalism, the definition is just a bit tenuous. The best I can do is that it is a group with common bonds, held together in an imagined community (imagined community part stolen from Wiki).

but there are right wing evil world controlling jews.
There are also right-wing evil world-controlling non-jews. A good half of the Bush administration comes to my mind. Or Silvio Berlusconi.

To the OP
I repeat that IMO the best indicator of a people being a nation is their food culture.
You eat/drink like me? We are a nation.
You eat/drink THAT?!?! Go back to your country you beast.
Panslavism is actually very much based on this. I was eating and exchanging recepees on fermented (not pickled) gerkins with poles not so long ago.

Then I'm nationally european. I can even eat some of the english cuisine, and that's something.

Essentially. (let me clarify - by 'national' I'm not talking about someone who holds a passport, I'm talking about someone who is a member of that specific 'nation')
Who holds a passport is a citizen, for sake of clarity (citizen or subject - anyway it's about the State).
If I were to marry let's say a french woman, I'd get the french citizenship also, but I would still be italian as nationality.


Let me understand: you're saying that to be a nationstate, a country has to satisfy both these conditions:
1.(almost) all people of that nationality must be within its borders
2.(almost) all people within its borders must be of that nationality
Did I understand correctly?

#1 would rule out countries that are sources of emigration, wouldn't it? and #2 would rule out countries that are targets of immigration, wouldn't it?

Then I'm nationally european. I can even eat some of the english cuisine, and that's something.

Well, you actually raise two points here.

The first one is that some individuals escape the rationale of nationalism by being cosmopolitan as I wrote to Cabra a couple of post ago. I myself enjoy trying different food cultures and if I had to apply my own rule to myself I'd come out as "any nationality". Just jesterday I cooked chinese, today it will be either indian or slovak, tomorrow maybe greek and so on...
On the other hand we both know people that would never eat something that their mother wouldn't have cooked.

To the second one. Is being a national european a bad thing?
I think not, for too long the european nations have warred each other claiming national/cultural reasons although if you look at it from a historycal standpoint you have a much stronger european common culture than most people would like to admit. And that is true in the kitchen too.

Then I'm nationally european. I can even eat some of the english cuisine, and that's something.

English attitudes to food are improving, there have always been regional foods that are good. Generally the attitude has been it is just fuel cheaper the better. Could I ask what it is you managed to eat?

I think the idea of a European culture and a related but different North American culture makes more sense than a 'Western culture'. I feel European as much as I feel English.

They could call themselves Oogelyboogies for all I care, my point was what Germans (inculding teens, not the older generations) call them. They are still often not considered Germans.

So you're being thrown into limbo anytime someone calls you something you don't identify with? That must make your life pretty unstable.
They don't consider themselves German, and don't consider themselves Turkish either. They've created their own sub-culture, between the two, and proud of both.
You're likely to find more of them telling you they're proud of Germany than you would find Germans...


I was speaking mostly about Jus Sanguinis. It's not outdated by almost a decade..even if they started reforming it in 2000, it's been going through reforms (citizenship in Germany) up until 2004 and even since then it said:
As late as 2004, 36 per cent of Turkish citizens living in Germany did not have German nationality despite being born there.[2]

(and this is still only discussing Turks....and they are not the only kind of immigrant in Germany)

Since 2000, they've got the right to choose which nationality they want to have.
So what's it to you if some decide they want to have a German passport, and others that they want a Turkish one?
There's a famous German comedian (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_Yanar) who keeps his Turkish passport for nostalgic reasons, despite not even being able to talk Turkish or ever having lived there.


No. No it's not at all. :rolleyes:

"In English there isn't even a exact word for this concept or feeling, and the closest I can think of is not-domestic or international...but it doesn't have the same meaning, really."

I was talking about the word Ausland and how it's used simply doesn't translate into English except maybe by using international, which still doesn't really have the same meaning or feeling to me.

Ausland is different, the English word for that would be "abroad". The word Auslaender however, is mostly applied to people of different nationality, and people not speaking German.
I can't imagine anybody except some right-wingers calling Turkish living in Germany Auslaender any more. Same goes for the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese who immigrated in the 60s.


Edit:
I belive I just threw up in my mouth when I saw this:

:rolleyes::mad::rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Almanturk.jpg

I quite liked that... it expresses modern Germany rather well, I think.

There are also right-wing evil world-controlling non-jews. A good half of the Bush administration comes to my mind. Or Silvio Berlusconi.

They're just the toadies, stalking horses, and figure heads of the evil joos.

Who holds a passport is a citizen, for sake of clarity (citizen or subject - anyway it's about the State).
If I were to marry let's say a french woman, I'd get the french citizenship also, but I would still be italian as nationality.

Clarify 'nationality'

Let me understand: you're saying that to be a nationstate, a country has to satisfy both these conditions:
1.(almost) all people of that nationality must be within its borders
All people within a given recognised geographical area would be ethnically and culturally homogenous.

2.(almost) all people within its borders must be of that nationality
Did I understand correctly?
If you take nationality to mean ethnic and culturally part of that 'nation' or 'people', yes. If you take nationality to mean simply I'm from Italy, or China, or Australia - no.

(I'm not saying this - this is the standard definition, it's not my definition)

Clarify 'nationality'
I'll try with an example about italian nationality. Being well aware, of course, that nationality is not citizenship or birthplace.

Manzoni, one of the central figures in the italian Risorgimento (hence a "good" nationalist) defined the national unity of italians as being “d'arme, di lingua, d'altare, / di memorie, di sangue e di cor” (of arms, of language, of altars / of memories, of blood and of heart). That is: italians, although scattered and divided in different States (in the XIX century), are one nation because they fight together, speak the same language, have the same religion, the same memories, are of the same ethnicity, and feel a united people.

I, being a bit more modern than Don Lisander (Manzoni), would drop the "altars" and the "blood" things, and maybe even the "language" part. But surely the memory of the wars, the memory of common cultural background, and the feeling of unity are things that unite italians (except for the antifascist resistance, of course).


If you take nationality to mean ethnic and culturally part of that 'nation' or 'people', yes. If you take nationality to mean simply I'm from Italy, or China, or Australia - no. I'd take the first. The latter I'd name birthplace.

(I'm not saying this - this is the standard definition, it's not my definition)
Thanks for clarifying it.

I'll try with an example about italian nationality. Being well aware, of course, that nationality is not citizenship or birthplace.

Manzoni, one of the central figures in the italian Risorgimento (hence a "good" nationalist) defined the national unity of italians as being “d'arme, di lingua, d'altare, / di memorie, di sangue e di cor” (of arms, of language, of altars / of memories, of blood and of heart). That is: italians, although scattered and divided in different States (in the XIX century), are one nation because they fight together, speak the same language, have the same religion, the same memories, are of the same ethnicity, and feel a united people.

I, being a bit more modern than Don Lisander (Manzoni), would drop the "altars" and the "blood" things, and maybe even the "language" part. But surely the memory of the wars, the memory of common cultural background, and the feeling of unity are things that unite italians (except for the antifascist resistance, of course).
That is essentially the definition of being part of a people that identifies itself as being a 'people'.... or a 'nation'. I understand what you mean by nationality now.


I'd take the first. The latter I'd name birthplace.
As would I. Now returning to your earlier concluions:


#1 would rule out countries that are sources of emigration, wouldn't it?
Not necessarily, the state would be homogenous within it's boundaries, while still having people who identify themselves as part of the people - while living abroad. However, that doesn't affect the state itself.

#2 would rule out countries that are targets of immigration, wouldn't it?
Immigration, yes. If you can automatically identify a 'people' in a state that doesn't identify themselves with everyone else - you've already established more than one 'people' in that state. Ergo, it's not going to be a uni-national, homogenous state.

All people within a given recognised geographical area would be ethnically and culturally homogenous.

Like they are in the islands of New York City. *nods*

Oh, wait...


You know, the funny part of that is that, while New Yorkers cannot possibly be considered ethnicallly homogenous, they actually are culturally homogenous, despite the fact that so many of them are products of other cultures. Hm. Go figure that.

As would I. Now returning to your earlier concluions: ...

Well, I agree completely. It was exactly my idea. We might still diverge on single countries, but the general definitions are ok.

Like they are in the islands of New York City. *nods*

Oh, wait...

Re-read the answer.
Good.

Now re-read what the answer was to.

Since when is New York a country/State?



Let me understand: you're saying that to be a nationstate, a country has to satisfy both these conditions:
1.(almost) all people of that nationality must be within its borders

All people within a given recognised geographical area would be ethnically and culturally homogenous.




You know, the funny part of that is that, while New Yorkers cannot possibly be considered ethnicallly homogenous, they actually are culturally homogenous, despite the fact that so many of them are products of other cultures. Hm. Go figure that.


So they fulfill one out of the numerous conditions to qualify as an nation. Wonderful. Sorry, what was your point again?

Re-read the answer.
Good.

Now re-read what the answer was to.

Since when is New York a country/State?








So they fulfill one out of the numerous conditions to qualify as an nation. Wonderful. Sorry, what was your point again?
Oh, sorry, if it wasn't clear.

My point was that your criteria for homogeneity are arbitrary crap that do not match reality.

NYC is an illustrative example in that it (a) meets one of the criteria but not the other, showing that both criteria are not necessary for a group identity and/or a stable, cohesive social unit; (b) it is not a nationstate, yet it still manages to meet half of your criteria, indicating that that criterion is not necessarily related to nationstate-hood; (c) that NYC exhibits far more of that criterion than the whole rest of the nation of which it is a part does. Etc.

All indicating that geographic location, common ethnicity, and common cultural forms are not indicators of nationstate-hood, because plenty of groups that are not nationstates can meet those criteria without being transformed into nationstates. Therefore, you can measure such factors all day long, yet still not be looking at a nationstate.

So they fulfill one out of the numerous conditions to qualify as an nation. Wonderful. Sorry, what was your point again?

I think her point was that if you can't even get an area as geographically small as Manhattan to fit into your definition, then trying to apply it to something as large as a nationstate is, essentially, impossible.

Thus making it a worthless definition which has absolutely no applicability to anything even remotely resembling reality.

In fact, that point seems to be abundantly clear, and I'm really curious why you weren't able to discern it immediately

My point was that your criteria for homogeneity are arbitrary crap that do not match reality.
Firstly, for the upteenth time, these aren't my criteria - they are the stanard criteria set out by ethno-territorial academics.

Secondly, 'does not match reality'? Nationstates exist... in reality.

NYC is an illustrative example in that it (a) meets one of the criteria but not the other, showing that both criteria are not necessary for a group identity
''It qualifies under one aspect, but not the another... so lets just ignore the other aspect.... YAY. It fits!" Erm, no.

and/or a stable, cohesive social unit;
A family is a stable and cohesive social unit - that does not make a family a nationstate.

(b) it is not a nationstate, yet it still manages to meet half of your criteria, indicating that that criterion is not necessarily related to nationstate-hood;
It's not a nationstate by your own admission, only meets half of the normative criteria, by your own admission - therefore you think that the rest of the criteria should not apply.... So you feel fiddling around with the parameters to fit your example is a way of proving your point, rather than finding an exact example to fit the parameters.

(c) that NYC exhibits far more of that criterion than the whole rest of the nation of which it is a part does. Etc.
NYC exhibits far more of the criteria than the rest of the United States- I have not and will not disagree with or dispute that. NYC does not exhibit all of the criteria. Ergo, it does not fit the definition - then it does not fit the definition of a nationstate.

All indicating that geographic location, common ethnicity, and common cultural forms are not indicators of nationstate-hood,
'cept that they are.

because plenty of groups that are not nationstates can meet those criteria without being transformed into nationstates. Therefore, you can measure such factors all day long, yet still not be looking at a nationstate.
Nation + State = nationstate. NYC falls down pretty early in that it ain't a State. It may well be argued that the population consider themselves a 'nation', but it is not a State. Therefore, it cannot be a nationstate.

I think her point was that if you can't even get an area as geographically small as Manhattan to fit into your definition, then trying to apply it to something as large as a nationstate is, essentially, impossible.

Thus making it a worthless definition which has absolutely no applicability to anything even remotely resembling reality.

In fact, that point seems to be abundantly clear, and I'm really curious why you weren't able to discern it immediately

Nationstates exist. All you have to do is look for them.

What the....now I'm getting "mexicancupid dating" ads.....

Ain't nothing on what I'm getting:

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CPqQ35TU5KufjwEQ2AUYTzIIkMEy4PY3eN8

Wonder who caused that?

Ain't nothing on what I'm getting:

-snip-

Wonder who caused that?

Aww :(

Firstly, for the upteenth time, these aren't my criteria - they are the stanard criteria set out by ethno-territorial academics.

Secondly, 'does not match reality'? Nationstates exist... in reality.
Oh, do they? I consider the concept of "nation" and, by extension, "nationstate" to an entirely arbitrary political fiction, in the sense of "legal fiction," meaning it's a term that has functional meaning in some applications even though it does not refer to a real thing. So... which reality do "nationstates" exist in? The one where you can go to them? Or the one where everyone on the planet agrees about what makes a place a "nationstate"? Or the one that exists in the speeches of politicians?

''It qualifies under one aspect, but not the another... so lets just ignore the other aspect.... YAY. It fits!" Erm, no.
Not even remotely what I said.

A family is a stable and cohesive social unit - that does not make a family a nationstate.
Exactly.

It's not a nationstate by your own admission, only meets half of the normative criteria, by your own admission - therefore you think that the rest of the criteria should not apply.... So you feel fiddling around with the parameters to fit your example is a way of proving your point, rather than finding an exact example to fit the parameters.


NYC exhibits far more of the criteria than the rest of the United States- I have not and will not disagree with or dispute that. NYC does not exhibit all of the criteria. Ergo, it does not fit the definition - then it does not fit the definition of a nationstate.
The funniest part is that you completely missed the multiple times I stated that, because your criteria also apply to non-nationstates, they cannot be used as measurements of what's a nationstate, and that NYC not being a nationstate illustrates that. If you had not completely missed that point, you wouldn't now be trying to beat me up with the undeniable fact that NYC is not a nationstate. By the way, neither are a lot of other places that meet your criteria.

'cept that they are.
Sez you.

Nation + State = nationstate.
And Racoon + Dog = racoondog. Hey, this is fun! What else can we combine?

NYC falls down pretty early in that it ain't a State. It may well be argued that the population consider themselves a 'nation', but it is not a State. Therefore, it cannot be a nationstate.
No shit, Sherlock. See above.

Nationstates exist. All you have to do is look for them.
I've heard the exact same thing said about angels.

I think her point was that if you can't even get an area as geographically small as Manhattan to fit into your definition, then trying to apply it to something as large as a nationstate is, essentially, impossible.

Thus making it a worthless definition which has absolutely no applicability to anything even remotely resembling reality.

In fact, that point seems to be abundantly clear, and I'm really curious why you weren't able to discern it immediately
You read my post correctly, and I think it's rather obvious why PM is acting as if he failed to discern it. Because if he acknowledge it, he'd have to admit that his criteria do not really define a "nationstate."

Oh, do they?
Erh.... yeh.

I consider the concept of "nation" and, by extension, "nationstate" to an entirely arbitrary political fiction, in the sense of "legal fiction," meaning it's a term that has functional meaning in some applications even though it does not refer to a real thing.
Great. But in academia the term 'nationstate' exists and is defined. Go argue with academics if you want. I'm merely stating what is commonly acknowledged. Secondly, a 'nation' is a political construct? First time I've heard that. Be sure to mention that to the Sami.

So... which reality do "nationstates" exist in? The one where you can go to them?
Yes.


The funniest part is that you completely missed the multiple times I stated that, because your criteria also apply to non-nationstates, they cannot be used as measurements of what's a nationstate, and that NYC not being a nationstate illustrates that. If you had not completely missed that point, you wouldn't now be trying to beat me up with the undeniable fact that NYC is not a nationstate.
I'm not beating you up - I'm agreeing with you. Your definition of what is and isn't a nation is wonderful in your own world. Doesn't actually apply in reality.

By the way, neither are a lot of other places that meet your criteria.
Example?

Sez you.
Says a lot of academics in the field.

I've heard the exact same thing said about angels.
Ok. Well show me an angel.

Edit: Muravyets, just a quick and genuine question - do you know what a 'nation' is?

Erh.... yeh.


Great. But in academia the term 'nationstate' exists and is defined. Go argue with academics if you want. I'm merely stating what is commonly acknowledged. Secondly, a 'nation' is a political construct? First time I've heard that. Be sure to mention that to the Sami.
Academia. That's right across the street from Fairy Land, isn't it? You know, those places where it is not strictly required that you be talking about real things.

And isn't Academia the place where even the most highly ranked, respected, and established authorities often disagree with each other vehemently about the most basic points of their various specializations? I believe it is.

Your appeal to academic authority is not leading me to accept the concept of "nation" and "nationstate" that you have chosen to accept.


Yes.



I'm not beating you up - I'm agreeing with you. Your definition of what is and isn't a nation is wonderful in your own world. Doesn't actually apply in reality.


Example?


Says a lot of academics in the field.
A) You have yet to establish that your reality is really more real than my reality.

B) I gave you an example.

C) See above for my opinion of your academics who are out standing in their fields.

Ok. Well show me an angel.
Just as soon as you show me a nationstate. You know, a place that could not possibly be accurately described in any other way because it meets criteria that no other kind of political, cultural or geographic group/unit/object/whatever meets.

Edit: Muravyets, just a quick and genuine question - do you know what a 'nation' is?
Yes, and I already told you that, too.

EDIT: I'm sorry, but "nation," "nationstate," "state," all such terms are little more than near-synonyms for one thing -- a large group of people sharing cultural and/or political social forms, particularly of a legal nature. By "near-synonyms" I mean that the terms have some slight variations of shades of meaning which are of interest only in highly specific discussions of minute details of social or political organization, rather like the difference between "red," "crimson," "scarlet," etc.

And all of those things are, essentially, fictions -- meaning they do not refer to any physical location or object, nor to any physical or psychological trait of human beings, nor to any particular continuity of social tradition within a group of any kind. They are applied interchangeably and arbitrarily to all kinds of groups for all kinds of reasons, and their specific meaning is dependent upon the context in which they are being used at any one time.

Ain't nothing on what I'm getting:

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CPqQ35TU5KufjwEQ2AUYTzIIkMEy4PY3eN8

Wonder who caused that?

I can top that:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Gladiatoren.png

Academia. That's right across the street from Fairy Land, isn't it? You know, those places where it is not strictly required that you be talking about real things.

And isn't Academia the place where even the most highly ranked, respected, and established authorities often disagree with each other vehemently about the most basic points of their various specializations? I believe it is.
You must hold the law in high regard as well. Amusing.

Your appeal to academic authority is not leading me to accept the concept of "nation" and "nationstate" that you have chosen to accept.
*shrug* Doesn't matter if I or you accept them or don't. That's what they are.


A) You have yet to establish that your reality is really more real than my reality.
You can physically go to a nationstate.

B) I gave you an example.
Then they're not nationstates. No big whoop about that.

C) See above for my opinion of your academics who are out standing in their fields.
See my opinion regarding your opinions...... and....this could go on for a while....


Just as soon as you show me a nationstate.
Japan, is one example. Tibet, Iceland, the Swiss (although I disagree), Malta, Bhutan. And some others.

Can I see that angel please?

Yes, and I already told you that, too.
Hmmm. Ok. It just seems like you have notion that nation/people are somehow political constructs... which is what a nation is not.

Edit: Seen your edit: A nation is not political - it is a cultural/social/ethnic based group - a 'people' like the Sami, Basques, Kurds, Inuit. A State is political. That's the point: When you group an artificial political construct (state) with a cultural/social/ethnic group (nation/people) in a harmonious combination, then you get a nation-state.

You must hold the law in high regard as well. Amusing.
Yeah, I do, actually.

*shrug* Doesn't matter if I or you accept them or don't. That's what they are.
Yes, that is what they are.


You can physically go to a nationstate.
You can also physically go to non-nationstates.

Then they're not nationstates. No big whoop about that.


See my opinion regarding your opinions...... this could go on for a while....
You're right, it could. Why don't we just agree to disagree?


Japan.

Can I see that angel please?
Japan can also be described as a "nation," a "country," and a "state."

Hmmm. Ok. It just seems like you have notion that nation/people are somehow political constructs... which is what a nation is not.
A) Sez you; and

B) I didn't say anything at all about "people."

You can also physically go to non-nationstates.
Yeh, and I'm not saying you can't!

B) I didn't say anything at all about "people."

A nation is a people. That's the entire point!

Edit: Seen your edit: A nation is not political - it is a cultural/social/ethnic based group - a 'people' like the Sami, Basques, Kurds, Inuit. A State is political. That's the point: When you group an artificial political construct (state) with a cultural/social/ethnic group (nation/people) in a harmonious combination, then you get a nation-state.
Just saw your edit, and I disagree on the grounds that a combination of cultural/social/ethnic identity plus political construct is not necessary to the establishment of a "nationstate" because when you change the cultural/social/ethnic identity of the residents of a place, that place's status as a nation among other nations does not change. The cultural/social/ethnic identity has no effect upon the political construct whatsoever.

Yeh, and I'm not saying you can't!
No, what you seem to be saying is that you want to take a list of criteria, which apply to lots of different kinds of groups, and claim that they form the definition of "nationstate" but only when they are applied to groups that you think should be called nationstates. When they are applied to other groups, like cities, then, according to you, they mean something else.


A nation is a people. That's the entire point!
No, it isn't. It is people. Not A people.

France has not stopped being France just because the people who are French today are culturally/socially/ethnically very different from the people who were French 400 years ago.

Just saw your edit, and I disagree on the grounds that a combination of cultural/social/ethnic identity plus political construct is not necessary to the establishment of a "nationstate" because when you change the cultural/social/ethnic identity of the residents of a place, that place's status as a nation among other nations does not change. The cultural/social/ethnic identity has no effect upon the political construct whatsoever.

Alright. Interesting.

because when you change the cultural/social/ethnic identity of the residents of a place, that place's status as a nation among other nations does not change
They are identifying their common culture/social/ethnic links themselves through self identification. It is not enforced from the outside. Their identity does not change in relation to other nations.... to the political state maybe, but not to other nations.

No, it isn't. It is people. Not A people
I'll can't agree. Sorry. There are such things as 'peoples'. (and as such, in the singular when talking about this topic)

France has not stopped being France just because the people who are French today are culturally/socially/ethnically very different from the people who were French 400 years ago.
True. France (try as it might) does not have 'one people'. They might be French citizens, but the ex colonials that have settled in France have caused an emergence of a multi-cultural society. Multiple cultures stem from multiple peoples.

Edit: I know they try and bleat on about 'integration', but it's pretty obvious to see over the past 5 odd years, the emergence of separate identities.
__________________

Alright. Interesting.


They are identifying their common culture/social/ethnic links themselves through self identification. It is not enforced from the outside. Their identity does not change in relation to other nations.... to the political state maybe, but not to other nations.


I'll can't agree. Sorry. There are such things as 'peoples'. (and as such, in the singular when talking about this topic)


True. France (try as it might) does not have 'one people'. They might be French citizens, but the ex colonials that have settled in France have caused an emergence of a multi-cultural society. Multiple cultures stem from multiple peoples.
__________________
Edit edit edit. :D

EDIT: Yeah, there are such things as "peoples". However, they do not combine with political constructs in some kind of social alchemy to magically produce "nationstates" that are somehow distinct from other kinds of national groups.

I refer you to the example of France in my other post. I suggest that the internal change you are suggesting does not really happen. Perhaps among individuals, but not on a societal level. If you could time-travel a Frenchman from 400 years ago to Paris of today, he wouldn't know what the fuck he was looking at, but that does not make today's French less French than him, inasmuch as they are citizens of France.

AND EDIT AGAIN: I have work to do and have to quit the thread for a while. Perhaps we might reach some common understanding on this in time, but for now, let me just say two things:

1) My view is that "nation" and "nationstate" both are artificial "terms of art," and

2) I really don't have a problem living with the disagreement on that point with you, so if you want to just agree to disagree, I'm fine with that.

I will check up on this thread later.

Edit: Seen your edit: A nation is not political - it is a cultural/social/ethnic based group - a 'people' like the Sami, Basques, Kurds, Inuit. A State is political. That's the point: When you group an artificial political construct (state) with a cultural/social/ethnic group (nation/people) in a harmonious combination, then you get a nation-state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_people#Political_status_and_violence

The Basque are considered to be part of the Spanish State, nothing more, nothing less. But because of their language, they are considered a distinct ethnic group.

Edit edit edit. :D


Hey look - I'll agree to disagree :D My battery's about to die anyway.

The Basque are considered to be part of the Spanish State, nothing more, nothing less. But because of their language, they are considered a distinct ethnic group.

I never said the Basques weren't part of the Spanish state.

I never said the Basques weren't part of the Spanish state.

I didn't imply that either, PM.

I refer you to the example of France in my other post. I suggest that the internal change you are suggesting does not really happen. Perhaps among individuals, but not on a societal level. If you could time-travel a Frenchman from 400 years ago to Paris of today, he wouldn't know what the fuck he was looking at, but that does not make today's French less French than him, inasmuch as they are citizens of France.

I have to disagree with you.
Take a parisienne from 400 years ago to a typical Paris restaurant of today and he will recognize most things.
Take a frenchman from today and time-travel him 400 years into the past and he will recognize even more things.

Cultural change on a society level happens every day by imperceptible degrees, it is a slow process though and you may recognize it happening trough generations. That's why more people are able today to appreciate Gauguin's work than there were in his time.

when people say by nation they mean something other then government, i don't entirely understand what the're talking about.

to me, the only sense that can be made out of the term, is perhapse a geographical area, and every kind of thing in it, over which some government in some form claims soverignty.

there are of course other uses of the term. i mean if we're going to try and extract meaning from usage and context, i suppose it might mean all of the people that are from a particular place where THEIR government, or tribal culture, was THE hierarchy.

does every ethnicity have an inalianable right to some sort of some degree of self governance? the way i look at it, yes, i think so.

but i also think, as or more importantly, is that whatever culture/ethnicity evolved over the longest time in a particular place, is the most likely to be in harmony with the entire ecosystem of that place. that there is a spiritual aspect to this. and that it is right and proper, that matters pertaining to the maintianence and balance of nature and sacredness of place be refered to their elders or indiginous ethnic hierarchy.

this last of course has little or no parallel in 'modern' 'nations' at this current time. i suspect, rather strongly, that many of today's blindnessess and imbalances are do, in large measure to precisely this factor.

of course i'm not saying that all indiginous customs are inhierently and automatically the objective scientific optimum of environmental management. and yet, i'd be hard pressed to pin down spicifics that weren't simply exceptions or variations, where this would unambiguously not be the case.

when people say by nation they mean something other then government, i don't entirely understand what the're talking about.

to me, the only sense that can be made out of the term, is perhapse a geographical area, and every kind of thing in it, over which some government in some form claims soverignty.

That would be a country.
As for the definition of "nation" and "nationality", I think that you might find interesting the previous exchange between me and Psychotic Mongooses (scroll up the thread).

To sum it up:
"country" is a geopolitics-orientered term
"State" and "citizenship" are society-orientered terms
"nation" is a culture-orientered term

Many a leader has been inspired to say stuff like that, eh? I would be interested to see the source link for that quote in order to know WHICH leader actually said those words, because they are a load of shit.
Teddy Roosevelt. It's quite famous...called the hypenated American. And I think it express the call for assimilation and integration and unity that dominated 19th and 20th Century American culture so well.

The idea that Americans are balkanized into disparate ethnic enclaves all maintaining separate cultural identities is nonsense. When Americans describe themselves as Irish/German/Italian/African/Korean/etc-American, they are merely using a form of descriptive that provides information telling us what their ancestry is but that they themselves are not foreign born. I know of no Americans who go abroad and, in answer to questions like "What's your nationality?", answer "German-American."
I know of many Hispanics, for example, that call themselves 'Cuban', 'Mexican', 'Dominican' etc though....

American is the nationality. German-American is descriptive personal information about an individual American.
Yes we know...but the point was that the growing trend away from a central unifiying theme is the road to balkanization.

Painting Americans who recognize their ethnic heritage as disloyal to some imagined "republic" that most Americans cannot even agree exists in one form or another is nothing but the kind of xenophobic bullshit that rightwing nationalists love to spout when fantasizing about the kind of "nation" that makes me start fantasizing about resistance and revolution.
Do so then. Resist and Revolt :) Like I said, that quote quite accuretly expresses the idea of America that dominated the country for a while and has only recently fallen out of favor....however, that doesn't mean that it was wrong or that the new version of the nation is right.

Nationalism -- by which I mean the kind of strict, militant, us-versus-them, salute-the-flag, serve-the-state vision that totalitarianism thrives on -- is absolutely at odds with the very concept of "nation" that the US was founded on, which is all about facilitating individual interests, which includes expression of individual identity (see First Amendment), not about reinforcing group identification; all about questioning the authority of the state, not submitting to it; all about striking out on one's own if need be, not clinging to a group to define oneself.
Nationalism is at odds with America? :p
EDIT: By the way, my ancestors came from Italy (both north and south), Germany, Alsace, and Russia via Poland. When asked about my ethnicity, I describe myself as European-American. Tell me, who am I splitting my loyalty with? The US and... who? The UN?
To me the view that you don't think "disloyal to some imagined "republic" that most Americans cannot even agree exists in one form or another" this exists is what splits your loyalty.
So you're being thrown into limbo anytime someone calls you something you don't identify with? That must make your life pretty unstable.
You are thrown into limbo if you are between two places and don't really belong in either.

They don't consider themselves German, and don't consider themselves Turkish either. They've created their own sub-culture, between the two, and proud of both.
Yes...they're proud of being Turkish, so proud that their families left Turkey for a better life. They're proud of being German, so proud that they (Turks in Germany, and of those who vote) vote super left around 90% of the time....

. A survey following the 2005 Federal election revealed close to 90 per cent voted for Gerhard Schröder's SPD/Green alliance.

You're likely to find more of them telling you they're proud of Germany than you would find Germans...
Whether that's true or not is just your ridiculously open speculation. If it were true, however, it would be because of totally different reasoning, and you know it.

Since 2000, they've got the right to choose which nationality they want to have.
So what's it to you if some decide they want to have a German passport, and others that they want a Turkish one?
There's a famous German comedian (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_Yanar) who keeps his Turkish passport for nostalgic reasons, despite not even being able to talk Turkish or ever having lived there.
If someone is living in German and has the option to choose between a German passport and Turkish one and chooses the Turkish one over the German one, he does not belong in Germany.


Ausland is different, the English word for that would be "abroad". The word Auslaender however, is mostly applied to people of different nationality, and people not speaking German.
Indeed, but 'abroad' still doesn't have the same feeling as the word Ausland.

The world Auslaender also is directly used for immigrants, whether they speak German or not.

I can't imagine anybody except some right-wingers calling Turkish living in Germany Auslaender any more. Same goes for the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese who immigrated in the 60s.
Wel you either a) don't have a well developed imagination or b) don't spend enough time in Germany anymore.

I know many people who call Turks and other immigrants living in Germany Ausländer......most of the Germans I hang out with do so.....and for example, it is quite common and normal to call the areas where they live 'Ausländerviertel' (All this applies directly to Switzerland too, not sure about Austria). Another thing that comes to mind almost at once is whenever we discuss problems with crime in Germany or Switzerland, the word Ausländerkriminalität is used. This obviously implies those Ausländer (Turks/Balkan People, for example) living in the country....and often times they do speak German and were born 'here'.


I quite liked that... it expresses modern Germany rather well, I think.
How ignorant of you. As if Turkey has anything to do with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Germany)....

It is simply dishonoring a noble and beautiful history filled with symbolism and and meaning...to put the Turkish flag in the German flag.

It is simply dishonoring a noble and beautiful history filled with symbolism and and meaning...to put the Turkish flag in the German flag.

The Turkish Flag isn't in that image.

Unless you think the crescent and star is specific to Turkey?

In that case, some of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_flags) guys might want to have a word.

when people say by nation they mean something other then government, i don't entirely understand what the're talking about.

to me, the only sense that can be made out of the term, is perhapse a geographical area, and every kind of thing in it, over which some government in some form claims soverignty.
Well, what I'm basing my definition off of is what I learned in introductory geography at MUN; "nation" being a group of people with a common language and/or ethnicity; what you're referring to is the "state"; the political unit claiming sovereignty over its borders. Granted, it's easy to get them confused; I hadn't heard them defined that way until I did that geography course, and our society seems to refer to the "state" as a "nation"

As for relationship with the environment, that should be determined based on a science-centric approach, since science bases its conclusions on tested data observed, and improves its conclusions over time, whereas the same wouldn't necessarily apply to cultural traditions.

Yes...they're proud of being Turkish, so proud that their families left Turkey for a better life. They're proud of being German, so proud that they (Turks in Germany, and of those who vote) vote super left around 90% of the time....
You do not really want to tell that the SPD and the Greens are the ultra-left, don't you?
They are usually considered center-left to center

I do also not see why obviously a Muslim not voting for a Christian Democrat party does this out of dissatisfaction for Germany?
Maybe, he is just no adherent to Christian Democracy ?

Indeed, but 'abroad' still doesn't have the same feeling as the word Ausland.
Most would disagree and only very few would agree, which actually tells pretty much of you.

The world Auslaender also is directly used for immigrants, whether they speak German or not.
No, usually it is used to describe every person, which is not German. A foreigner some would say.

I know many people who call Turks and other immigrants living in Germany Ausländer......most of the Germans I hang out with do so.....and for example, it is quite common and normal to call the areas where they live 'Ausländerviertel' (All this applies directly to Switzerland too, not sure about Austria). Another thing that comes to mind almost at once is whenever we discuss problems with crime in Germany or Switzerland, the word Ausländerkriminalität is used. This obviously implies those Ausländer (Turks/Balkan People, for example) living in the country....and often times they do speak German and were born 'here'.
Which again tells more about you and about the persons you hang around with than about the situation in Germany.


How ignorant of you. As if Turkey has anything to do with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Germany)....

It is simply dishonoring a noble and beautiful history filled with symbolism and and meaning...to put the Turkish flag in the German flag.
I do not see any problem with German Turks creating a symbol for them self.
But maybe this is because I am a an ultra-left voter of the Greens.

You are thrown into limbo if you are between two places and don't really belong in either.


I'm in limbo, then? Wow, thanks for telling me, I would never have suspected...


Yes...they're proud of being Turkish, so proud that their families left Turkey for a better life. They're proud of being German, so proud that they (Turks in Germany, and of those who vote) vote super left around 90% of the time....


What's it to do with them what their parents did? It was hardly anything they had any influence on.
And what has voting behaviour to do with pride?



Whether that's true or not is just your ridiculously open speculation. If it were true, however, it would be because of totally different reasoning, and you know it.


If someone is living in German and has the option to choose between a German passport and Turkish one and chooses the Turkish one over the German one, he does not belong in Germany.

What reason would that be, then?
And I've got the option to get Irish citizenship, but I currently choose not to. Does that then also mean I should be sent straight back to Germany as well?



Indeed, but 'abroad' still doesn't have the same feeling as the word Ausland.

The world Auslaender also is directly used for immigrants, whether they speak German or not.


Wel you either a) don't have a well developed imagination or b) don't spend enough time in Germany anymore.

I know many people who call Turks and other immigrants living in Germany Ausländer......most of the Germans I hang out with do so.....and for example, it is quite common and normal to call the areas where they live 'Ausländerviertel' (All this applies directly to Switzerland too, not sure about Austria). Another thing that comes to mind almost at once is whenever we discuss problems with crime in Germany or Switzerland, the word Ausländerkriminalität is used. This obviously implies those Ausländer (Turks/Balkan People, for example) living in the country....and often times they do speak German and were born 'here'.

Not that it's much of a surprise, but you seem to hang out with extremely nationalistic Germans only, then.
It's by far not the norm in Germany. Switzerland with its sometimes rampant xenophobia I can't comment on.


How ignorant of you. As if Turkey has anything to do with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Germany)....

It is simply dishonoring a noble and beautiful history filled with symbolism and and meaning...to put the Turkish flag in the German flag.

It has a lot to do with it now.
But I get the impression you hold it with the kind of historians who only get interested in the present when it's turned into past...

for example, it is quite common and normal to call the areas where they live 'Ausländerviertel' (All this applies directly to Switzerland too, not sure about Austria). Another thing that comes to mind almost at once is whenever we discuss problems with crime in Germany or Switzerland, the word Ausländerkriminalität is used. This obviously implies those Ausländer (Turks/Balkan People, for example) living in the country....and often times they do speak German and were born 'here'.

While I'm somewhat curious about how you came to believe such bullshit, I believe it's better for my composure not to.
Nevertheless, even if we have the jolly SVP down here to keep us entertained and active, not even their regular members stoop normally to such a level.
It is indeed a not small matter of national Pride that the Cities in Switzerland have so far more or less managed to avoid ghettoification, no matter the romantic appeal it might have for the right wing.

The Turkish Flag isn't in that image.

Either you're playing ignorant, or you really didn't read the article that picture is from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Turks#Political_behaviour

"Self made German-Turkish flag"

You do not really want to tell that the SPD and the Greens are the ultra-left, don't you?
They are usually considered center-left to center
The Greens more so than the SPD, of course.
I do also not see why obviously a Muslim not voting for a Christian Democrat party does this out of dissatisfaction for Germany?
Maybe, he is just no adherent to Christian Democracy ?
So you're saying Islam is incompatible with Germany's largest political ideology? Sounds like Islam's problem, if you ask me.



No, usually it is used to describe every person, which is not German. A foreigner some would say.
Indeed. However it is also used to describe foreigners living in Germany; immigrants.


Which again tells more about you and about the persons you hang around with than about the situation in Germany.
How so?


I do not see any problem with German Turks creating a symbol for them self.
But maybe this is because I am a an ultra-left voter of the Greens.
That is probably why, actually.

Either you're playing ignorant, or you really didn't read the article that picture is from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Turks#Political_behaviour

"Self made German-Turkish flag"

That article from Wiki doesn't say where the flag is from, who made it, how common it is, is it in use by anybody in practical reality, or any indication as to it's origin.

In fact, the flag pic itself merely states: "I created this work entirely by myself" by some unknown person on Wikipedia in June 2008, with one example of one flag hanging again taken by an unknown user. The thing with Wiki is, how do we know that both image didn't come from the same guy?

Have anything else? (Stats or articles or hell, I'll even take some anecdotes from Germans!)

Edit: In fact, when I look at it again - I could swear that second image of that flag just appeared. To me, it still only has a crescent and a star. Indicative of Islam in general, which while reflecting the religion of Turkish immigrants, not necessarily equating to the Turkish national flag.

Edit 2: bah, fuck it. It's Wiki I don't really care. :p

While I'm somewhat curious about how you came to believe such bullshit, I believe it's better for my composure not to.
Nevertheless, even if we have the jolly SVP down here to keep us entertained and active, not even their regular members stoop normally to such a level.
It is indeed a not small matter of national Pride that the Cities in Switzerland have so far more or less managed to avoid ghettoification, no matter the romantic appeal it might have for the right wing.
1. What did you disagree with in what you quoted?

2. Are you claiming that Switzerland has no immmigrant areas that are unsafe to go into?

I'm in limbo, then? Wow, thanks for telling me, I would never have suspected...
You are what you are. I don't know you're life.

What's it to do with them what their parents did? It was hardly anything they had any influence on.
And what has voting behaviour to do with pride?
Why would they be proud of the a shitty country that they're parents left for a better life? Why wouldn't they be more proud of their host country and try to integrate better, instead of mixing a German-Turk flag to show that they are "proud" of Turkey or whatever.

People who vote for the left wing parties in Europe are hardly ever "proud of their country".




What reason would that be, then?
Because you come to a host's house, settle in and when the host asks you if you'd like to stay, officially, you say no but you stay there anywhere. It's rude and not the way things are done.

Remember, these peopel have no "right" to come to Germany in the first place anyway. It becomes problematic for those born 'here', but the ones immigrating have no "right" to do so, rather, they are being allowed to do so.
And I've got the option to get Irish citizenship, but I currently choose not to. Does that then also mean I should be sent straight back to Germany as well?
If you are choosing to stay in Ireland, yes.


Not that it's much of a surprise, but you seem to hang out with extremely nationalistic Germans only, then.
Why? Due to using the word Ausländerviertel or Ausländerkriminalität?? These are acceptable words to use.
It's by far not the norm in Germany. Switzerland with its sometimes rampant xenophobia I can't comment on.
Prove it. Prove that people don't use those above-mentioned words when speaking of those concepts, for example. It's not just 'extremely nationalistic' people who do so....


[QUOTE]It has a lot to do with it now.
But I get the impression you hold it with the kind of historians who only get interested in the present when it's turned into past...
No it doesn't. There is a whole rich history of reasoning and stories and feelings behind that flag, it's color and such....and to just simply paste part of the Turkish flag over that is disrespectful in the highest.

Why would they be proud of the a shitty country that they're parents left for a better life? Why wouldn't they be more proud of their host country and try to integrate better, instead of mixing a German-Turk flag to show that they are "proud" of Turkey or whatever.

People who vote for the left wing parties in Europe are hardly ever "proud of their country".

No, but they do identify with certain aspects of their cultures.
Personally, I am well aware that it's largely due to the culture I grew up in that I will check a bus plan before setting out on a bus journey. And it's because of the culture in the country I live in that I will say "thank you" to the driver when getting off the bus again.

It's not necessarily a matter of pride, abut a certain awareness of oneself and one's history.



Because you come to a host's house, settle in and when the host asks you if you'd like to stay, officially, you say no but you stay there anywhere. It's rude and not the way things are done.

Remember, these peopel have no "right" to come to Germany in the first place anyway. It becomes problematic for those born 'here', but the ones immigrating have no "right" to do so, rather, they are being allowed to do so.

If you are choosing to stay in Ireland, yes.

They do have a right. It's called "Aufenthaltserlaubnis".
My nationality has nothing at all to do with where I decide to live.


Why? Due to using the word Ausländerviertel or Ausländerkriminalität?? These are acceptable words to use.

Prove it. Prove that people don't use those above-mentioned words when speaking of those concepts, for example. It's not just 'extremely nationalistic' people who do so....


You're the one claiming they're part of every German's active vocabulary.
I have heard them before, but only by nationalistic and xenophobic politicians and newspapers.


No it doesn't. There is a whole rich history of reasoning and stories and feelings behind that flag, it's color and such....and to just simply paste part of the Turkish flag over that is disrespectful in the highest.

Well, seeing as I am from that country, shouldn't that be up to me to judge, rather than you?

I have to disagree with you.
Take a parisienne from 400 years ago to a typical Paris restaurant of today and he will recognize most things.
Take a frenchman from today and time-travel him 400 years into the past and he will recognize even more things.

Cultural change on a society level happens every day by imperceptible degrees, it is a slow process though and you may recognize it happening trough generations. That's why more people are able today to appreciate Gauguin's work than there were in his time.
A) That does not speak well for Parisian food. Nor for Parisian refrigeration.

B) Your little joke aside, cultural identity is actually not JUST about cheese and sauces.

Unless, of course, it is your contention that the Paris of 400 years ago also contained such things as sushi restaurants and other foreign cuisines readily available, public transportation, telecommunications, universal literacy, and that neither French fashion nor the French language have changed much in all that time. Perhaps our 400-year-old Frenchman would immediately feel at home in a culture shaped by the ideological revolution of 1798 with all its "Rights of Man and the Citizen" notions and destruction of the royal power structure. Perhaps our modern Frenchman would feel at home in a culture where kings held divine right and the church was the next greatest power over the lives of individuals. You see no difference at all in a culture that held belief in magic, and one that does not? Or between a culture built on individual liberty and one built on a birth-right power structure? Or between one where the vast bulk of all work and transportation had to be done by human labor/power as opposed to one where the bulk of all work is automated? Or one where it took days even weeks or months, depending on the weather and how much money you had to travel distances that, in the comparison culture, can be covered in minutes or hours?

These are not just superficial, technical differences. The way things get done, by what means work is accomplished and what kind of work is most common and/or important, ease of travel which affects how much exposure a person gets to foreign societies, the general level of literacy, the social power structure, the level of religiosity and what kind of religion, all of these affect the fundamental development of a culture. A culture where everyone can and is expected to gain and use the ability to chart his/her own course through society is vastly different from one in which an individual's course in life is limited or dictated by the traditions of the group. A society where everybody has a lot of interatction with foreign cultural influences is going to develop a much different idea of itself than one where interaction with foreign cultures is absent or limited.

I stand by my assertion that the France of today is vastly different from the France of 400 years ago, but nevertheless, still French.

EDIT: (C) Oh, and the time period between Gauguin's lifetime and today is not historically significant in terms of measuring cultural change. Joseph Cornell has a larger fan base now than he did when his works were new, and he didn't die until 1972. Fads and fashions are not the sole measure of cultural identity -- even less so than food.

Teddy Roosevelt. It's quite famous...called the hypenated American. And I think it express the call for assimilation and integration and unity that dominated 19th and 20th Century American culture so well.
I notice you're still not providing the source link. This causes me to be inclined to think you just dreamed this.

I know of many Hispanics, for example, that call themselves 'Cuban', 'Mexican', 'Dominican' etc though....
And...? That has fuck-all to do with what?

Yes we know...but the point was that the growing trend away from a central unifiying theme is the road to balkanization.
Did you dream up that "growing trend" at the same time that you dreamt that Roosevelt quote? There is no such trend. You just made it up because you're a xenophobe who will invent foreigners if he can't find any actual ones to bitch about.

Do so then. Resist and Revolt :) Like I said, that quote quite accuretly expresses the idea of America that dominated the country for a while and has only recently fallen out of favor....however, that doesn't mean that it was wrong or that the new version of the nation is right.
Yes, it fell out of favor after the American Bund figured out that the US decided to go to war against fascism rather than embrace it. Oops, oh well, then they had to go find something else to do with their bigoted selves since they weren't going to gain that political influence back again.

Nationalism is at odds with America? :p
Yes, it is.

"Patriotism" -- defined very, very vaguely and applied in a rather romantic rather than political way -- is the American thing. Not nationalism.

To me the view that you don't think "disloyal to some imagined "republic" that most Americans cannot even agree exists in one form or another" this exists is what splits your loyalty.
I'm not surprised that that is your view. It is bullshit, of course, and particularly circular and self-serving bullshit at that, which boils down to nothing more than that it is your opinion that I am disloyal to the US because I choose not to buy into the fantasy you just made up. But in fact, I am only disloyal to you -- no splitting involved on that point -- and you can declaim that all you like. Being called a traitor to you is not an insult.

<snip>

It is simply dishonoring a noble and beautiful history filled with symbolism and and meaning...to put the Turkish flag in the German flag.
You only think that because you hate swarthy people.

I'm starting to think Germany (the whole place) needs an order of protection against you, the way you obssess over it. Tell me, does Germany send you coded messages about how much it loves you via the patterns on its tie from day to day? You may as well think it does, since everything else you say about it is pure fantasy as well.

A nation is a plot of land that some people say they control. The concept of a nation is control, a nation must always control the masses dwelling within it.

never trust anyone who claims to be proud of their country, no matter how much they might claim to love you. sooner or later each of their perciptions of their loyalty's agendas will lead them to stab each other in the back, one way or another.

on the other hand, someone who loves that this particular rock over there is the same one their great great great grandmother sat on when coyote was teaching her how to make cornbread, i'd be a lot less inclined to worry about.