You are confusing the terms state and nation. Which is what this whole thread is about. A state has a government and certain powers. A nation is just a collection of people who have something in common. It doesn’t have any powers at all. Now, very often they are the same entity: the state of France and the nation of France are the same thing. But not necessarily.
Canada is a state encompassing two nations. Any québécois will insist that Quebec is its own nation. In fact the provincial legislature is called the National Assembly.
There already is a term for a the state that is not a subdivision of the United States. That term is “country.” I don’t see any reason “nation” needs to mean the same thing.
Also, when it comes to cultural identity and geographic location, there’s a pretty good argument that the U.S. is actually made up of multiple nations, and always has been. It’s really helped me figure out why, in certain instances, it seems like I’m talking to someone from a different planet. The experiences are just so different.
I prefer (1). If I feel any kind of compatriotism for someone, I’d rather it be because we both subscribe to the rule of law of an ideally secular state, not because of the accident of birth of some shared ethnic background. If my third cousin suddenly shows up and says “We must avenge the outrage done to our people by the Croats” or whatever, my response will be “uh… no.”
Well, my first response will be “who the hell are you?”, but “uh… no” will soon follow.
The United Kingdom is an example of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in one sovereign state. These nations were formerly Kingdoms, so were each once sovereign but that sovereignty got absorbed into the UK nation state.
Sometimes a state has only one nation, which simplifies matters.
Sometimes a nation can be spread across several states. Eg. The Kurds, spread across Iraq, Turkey and Iran.
The US uses the term state as a subdivision of its of its political territory, I think they got the idea from the Dutch. I believe other countries use the term.
State may or may not imply sovereignty.
Nation may or may not imply sovereignty
Nation-state conveniently does imply sovereignty.
The way the world is divided up politcally is a bit of a ‘dogs dinner’.
Austria prior to 1867; identified with Germans, Magyars, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Italians . . . . Even after 1867 you could say that Austria and Hungary were two states, both identified with multiple nationalities.
The Soviet Union ; identified with Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, Georgians . . .
The United Kingdom today; identified with English, Scots, Welsh, Irish.
The Ottoman Empire; identified with Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Greeks . . .
Where did you get this idea that this is what we mean by nation? Nationality is a shared cultural identity that is based on geography and shared cultural heritage. It’s not somethings some stranger would have to tell you about. You know whether someone is from French or English Quebec, for instance.
Arkansas, where I live, happens to also be one of those states that is subdivided into two distinct nations, albeit the language barrier is much smaller. Northern Arkansas and southern Arkansas are completely different. We even were split in the civil war–it’s just that the south has a higher population.
Going down to Little Rock, feels like I’m traveling to a completely different culture. This holds even when I go to a larger city up North, so it’s not just the urban/rural divide. I feel a compatriotism towards my fellow northern Arkansans that I just don’t feel towards the southern ones.
And from what I know about Quebec, the same thing applies, but even moreso. Heck, Quebec itself is so distinct from Canada that you’ve actually tried to split off, and were declared a nation that exists inside of Canada. You are legally a part of Canada but also your own Quebecois nation.
How does that make sense with your definition of “nation”?
“We” are free to define the word however “we” choose. What I described is how I prefer to define it, or at least my preference from among the two choices presented in the OP. My nation is Canada, not some ethnic or linguistic group.
The Soviet Union’s a great example. The Soviet Union was a state that was explicitly defined ideologically, by adherence to a particular set of beliefs, not by ethnicity. (The Soviets thought of nationalism as essentially bourgeois delusion, and believed that loyalties to one’s class, and by extension to the Party that represented the working class, was much more important than loyalty to a nation). Likewise, the fundamental essence of the Ottoman Empire was supposed to be about Islam (and, I guess, the royal family), not about ‘Turkishness’.
The problem with questions like this is that the word “nation” can have different definitions in different contexts. Expressions like “The Nation of Islam” and “The Cherokee Nation” are perfectly valid uses of the word “nation”. But they do not meet the standards of nationhood that, say, the United Nations specifies as a requirement for membership. If the use of the word “nation” works in your context and you are readily understood, then it is a good definition.
It’s like asking what “crime” means, whether it means a violation of a legislated definition of punishable offense, or if it means any blatant offense against any civilized principle, such as a “crime against humanity” or the crime of racial prejudice, or the application of somebody else’s reliigion…
The United Nations, confusingly, does not specify nationhood as a criterion for membership; just statehood.
And, equally, SFAIK has never said or done anything to suggest that membership, or eligibility for membership, of the UNO is a criterion of nationhood.
In my view, the first definition I listed, that of a sovereign state, is the correct definition. I know that #2 may have been considered technically correct in the past, but the colonial era changed all that. Ever since colonialism, you can basically forget about nationhood in the old-fashioned sense. A nation, a country and a sovereign state are all the same thing in today’s culture, hence terms like “national anthem” or “national flag.” Besides, the old definition of nationhood seems akin to racism and fascism, and was the main thrust behind the platform of apartheid in South Africa. In fact, it’s still the main thrust of a South African hate group called the “Afrikaner Resistance Movement.” They want a separate state for the white, Afrikaans speaking people who they refer to as “The Boer Nation.”
Well, no. Scotland has both a national anthem and a national flag, despite not being a sovereign state. Same goes for Wales, and I dare say other examples would not be hard to find.
As for colonialism spelling the end of nationhood in the old fashioned sense; not at all. Hence, decolonisation, a process whose main foundation is the claim that every nation (in the ethnic/cultural sense) has a right to political self-determination and therefore a claim to indepence as a sovereign state.
Tell that to the “nation” of Yogoslavia - oh, wait, you can’t. Because nation, culture and sovereign state are emphatically not the same.
Just because it’s used for evil, like by the nuts in Orania, doesn’t mean the concept isn’t sound. Lots of times, the concept of nationhood is used to get oppressed people more rights - like the First Nations.
I get the sense that Asian studies isn’t your specialty.
No. While the Han Chinese makeup 98% of Taiwanese, only 14% are either the Mainlanders who came over in the late 1940s when the ROC was defeated by the PRC or their descendents.
Although the second generation – the children of who who came over – are more integrated, there had been considerable friction before, especially with the violence of the KMTtoward the Taiwanese.
Taiwan had been a backwater of China prior to being ceded to Japan in 1895, and the colonial status continued until the end of the war in '45. Up until the war started going badly for them, Japan had attempted to run Taiwan as a model colony and to this day, Japan is seen fondly by many Taiwanese.
The completely separate paths and history since the split has further separated the culture of the two countries. I suppose if one is not familiar with the history, it would seem that they are both “China” but that is not the majority view of scholars.
Yeah, after 25 years of eating sushi, I decided to change my diet, so here I am. Well, actually we mostly did this for the kids, since Japan wasn’t home to either my Taiwanese wife or me.
This morning, David Cameron said of the Scottish independence referendum, “The people of Scotland have spoken. They have kept our country of four nations together.” FWIW.
I guess Canada isn’t a nation, since it has multiple official languages. And good heavens, India has languages up the wazoo. So it seems to me that language is out as an identifier. To me, a nation is an entity controlled by a government. So I would call the UK a nation, even though it is made up of four nations. Something like the Trinity but one more entity.
I agree, and moreover I think it’s an important point that unifies a country.
That statement has been made as a matter of political appeasement, and thoroughly embraced by Quebec, but it’s wrong and it’s counterproductive and divisive. Quebec’s provincial legislature, unlike that of any other province, is indeed called the “National Assembly”. And you know what else is different? Have a look at this pic of the Ontario legislative building, and now this one of the Quebec “National Assembly”.
Notice how the Ontario one – like the legislature in every other province and the capitol buildings in every US state – display the provincial/state flag along with the national flag. It would unacceptable in the US to fly another flag without also displaying the US flag, and indeed putting the national flag in the more prominent position. But in the Quebec legislature, there is nary a Canadian flag to be seen anywhere, either inside or out. This is no mere accident and no mere gesture. They simply don’t acknowledge the existence of Canada (except when it comes to cashing federal government checks), and don’t acknowledge that they are a province within a real, actual nation – a nation that was unified 147 years ago under a common set of laws, values, and principles. This is the kind of divisiveness that artificial, emotionally driven runaway notions of “nation” engender.
So yes, you can define “nation” any way you like, but it’s not necessarily either meaningful or productive. Hockey nuts in Toronto refer to themselves as “Leafs Nation” and now supporters of the lunatic mayor there have taken to referring to themselves as “Ford Nation”. So what? Some definitions are just frivolous and stupid, but more serious ones can be divisive and confrontational.
