Number one is correct. If Number 2 is correct, then the Aleutian Islands, Appalachia, the inhabitants of the Hawaiian island of Niiahua each constitute a nation. They are cultures, not nations.
Nation is often used synonymously with state or state identity, but two is commonly understood and more useful. What would be another good word for it, “peoples”? “Tribe” only works sometimes. I’m surprised so many here are arguing against it. I assume they understand what other people mean when they say it. Must be annoying, especially when reading about the Middle East or Africa. Or pan-nationalism. Or looking at a list of stateless nations.
It’s definitely fluid since it depends on the vagaries of shared self identity. It doesn’t work where outsiders point and say hey, you should/should not be a nation. Taiwan has already been mentioned. Or how WASPs, inner city blacks, and Spanish speaking hispanic Catholics might see each other as fellow citizens of the American nation; white nationalists, not so much.
If you’re crunchy enough you can dream of someday there being one nation, e.g. “I’m a citizen of the whole world.”
As already suggested, how about something like “culture”?
The problem with the word “nation” is that it has strong political implications, and the implications of language can be very compelling. It implies a justification for political autonomy, for example. Which is what I mean when I say it tends to be divisive rather than unifying – it’s the kind of mindset that encourages regional tribalism rather than national unity.
On the other hand, in the UK you will find the National Gallery of Scotland, the English National Opera, the National Library of Wales, National Theatre Wales, the National Orchestra of Wales, the National Trust for Scotland, the National Archives of Scotland, the English National Ballet and a host of simlarly-named institutions in both government and voluntary sectors. Are all these usages wrong?
The difference I think is that these entities are actual countries – and countries with very long and rich histories – which have chosen to become part of a federation called the UK. The UK in that sense is rather a special case, and those circumstances don’t exist elsewhere. You can look all over a fiercely independent state like Texas, for example, and I doubt that you’ll find a “national library of Texas” or any other abuse of the world “national” in place of “state” the way Quebec has done, and though they occasionally make silly noises about secession, they proudly fly the national flag above the Texas state flag on the capitol building. The US has a very strong sense of national unity despite vast regional differences, and I think that is a tremendous accomplishment much to be admired and worthy of being emulated.
They’re both acceptable. I’m puzzled by the question. To me, it’s like asking which is the correct definition of “stripper”:
-
One who performs a striptease.
-
One who strips, as one that strips photographic negatives or positives
Words do have multiple meanings, you know.
I don’t think the Welsh had any choice in the matter! By contrast Texas was an independent sovereign which elected to join the Union.
But, I agree with you, Wales is a nation and Texas is not. Which just highlights the point that there’s no one-to-one correspondence between present or past sovereignty and nationhood. Wales is a nation because it is sufficiently culturally distinct from England that the Welsh consider themselves a distinct nation, and the English agree. Texas is not a nation because it does not have that degree of cultural distinction. Quebec may be something of a borderline case if the Quebecois generally consider themselves to be a distinct nation from the Anglo-Canadians, but the Anglo-Canadians generally do not consider themselves to be a distinct nation from the Quebecois.
Both definitions are correct, as both meanings are commonly used. In fact somebody could define nation as “A triple layered cake eaten on alternate Tuesdays”, and that would be acceptable provided all parties understood this narrow technical meaning. Arguments about definitions are ultimately sterile.
That said, I’m more likely to take (1) as the meaning than (2), but context could guide me towards either.
Without further context, I generally go with #2, so if I had to pick one of those two, that’s my choice. Otherwise, context dictates meaning.
The problem with definition #1 is that, if we apply it literally, then the Vatican City State is a nation. The Republic of San Marino is a nation. Prior to Italian unification, Parma was a nation. In the eighteenth century, the Bishopric of Munster was a nation. The City of Bremen was a nation. Etc.
Nobody, in fact, uses the word this way. Nowadays, most sovereign states are national states, but this is a comparatively recent state of affairs, and there are some current and many historical examples of sovereign states which are not nations, and are not spoken of as nations. Consequently “sovereign state” as a definition of nation is, I think, inaccurate.
Over here, we have the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), which clearly follows definition #1.
I’m certain that the United Nations would disagree with that last sentence, as would have the League of Nations before it. The point being that the word “nation” does have multiple meanings, some more valid than others, and some politically charged and counterproductive as I said before. Many of those groups who declare themselves “nations” would certainly be denied membership and recognition by the UN. IIRC some of the Quebec extremists once tried to gain UN membership, which mainly caused a certain amount of amusement and not much else. I’m sure the UN would equally fail to recognize an application by “Colbert Nation”!
But the UN charter explicitly says that membership is open to “peace-lovings states” meeting certain criteria. There is no requirement to be a nation in order to join the United Nations, and indeed no reference anywhere in the Charter to nationhood at all. Admission to the UN is therefore not a guarantee that a particular state is, in fact a nation. Similary, exclusion from membership is not an indication exclusion is not an assertion that a particular nation is not a nation; merely that it’s not a state (or that it’s a state which fails to meet the criteria specified in the charter).
Arguing that a state must be a nation if it’s in the United Nations is a bit like arguing that territory must be in the Americas if it’s part of the United States of America.
Canada definitely isn’t a nation, it’s made up of at least two nations, a distinct Anglophone and Francophone nations. (I don’t know to what extent the First Nations peoples consider themselves to have distinctive national identities, but maybe more than two).
India is a trickier case, and without some extensive polling data I don’t know to what extent Tamils, Bengalis, Punjabis, Malayalis and so forth consider themselves distinct national groups. I’d say in 1947 India was definitely a multinational state, but it’s possible that over the seven decades since then, a distinct national consciousness may have emerged. I don’t think language is the issue, so much as a distinct self-identity. Scottish and English people share a common language after all, as do Venezuelans and Colombians, but they’re clearly distinct nations.
I essentially agree with this. Yes you can use ‘nation’ to mean ‘state’, but why would you? The nation and the state are (often) two distinct objects of loyalty, and treating the two synonymously, you lose the ability to understand situations in which those loyalties conflict.
Also, ‘ethnicity’ in India is a deeply tricky term, and doesn’t correspond precisely to language. Indian identity in the premodern era was a complex mixture of things like language, caste, region, and to some extent religion and even race (leaving aside the obvious stuff like economic status, livelihood, etc.). A Tamil-speaking Brahmin and a Tamil-speaking non-Brahmin didn’t necessarily see themselves as a single people. (Tamil nationalism in the 1940s and 1950s was largely based on the idea that the Brahmins were northern oppressors).
The Master speaks (answering my question, BTW).
Either or both, depending upon the context.
This is a little bit of a hijack, but what was the British Parliament thinking when they decided to call that batch of laws the Intolerable Acts? They’d probably have done much better to call them the Mildly Inconvenient Acts, or better yet, the Get Over It; You’ll Probably Hardly Even Notice Them Acts.
Just think how much trouble they could have saved everyone.
The didn’t. The gave them zippy titles like “An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same; and for amending such parts of the several acts of parliament relating to the trade and revenues of the said colonies and plantations, as direct the manner of determining and recovering the penalties and forfeitures therein mentioned.”
It was the opponents of the legislation who came up with the more memorable sound-bite.