Who is a member of a nation?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Continuing the discussion from Who is a Jew? (removed from thread on Jewish heads of state):

I’d like to expand the “Who is a Jew” topic to something more general: who is a member of a nation?

[Note that by “nation” I mean large body of people united by a common origin, history, culture, ethnicity, and/or language. Not the nation-state which is the governing polity of a nation. The common (at least among Americans) conflation of “nation” and “nation-state” is an interesting topic in itself, but not what this thread is about. It’s obvious enough who is a member of a nation-state: whoever holds citizenship. Again, not the topic of this thread.]

So, who is Japanese? Or, French? Or, American?

Is ancestry enough? Or, ancestry and language? Or, ancestry, language, and lifetime experience? Etc.

And who decides? The individual in question? The nation itself? Those outside the nation? Moot if everyone agrees, but complicated if not.

I don’t have any answers at the moment, and maybe there are no answers. I’m interested in hearing what others think and trying to clarify mine own thoughts.

2

In Canada, French Canadians have long considered themselves a nation, though obviously not a nation-state. That’s why the provincial legislature is called the National Assembly.

3

It’s an interesting topic, as long as it’s academic; of course nation-states should treat all their citizens equally regardless of “nationality”.

I think it depends on the person and the nation to some extent. I would say anyone who grew up in the nation, speaks the language, and isn’t part of some self-consciously distinct minority group should qualify; I would reject any definition based on ancestry as inevitably racist. I would give considerable weight to someone’s self-definition.

Where it gets tricky is when people have only one or two of those qualities. For some bigger “nations”, I think it’s arguably possible for people to maintain a national identity while living in diaspora communities in other countries. Not so much for, say, Iceland; an Icelandic person can live in America, but probably not in a lifestyle which involves interacting primarily with other Icelanders. I think for most nations, having some familiarity with the national language is probably essential. Ireland would be one contrary example I can think of.

My idealistic belief is that the USA is not a nation-state; unlike France or Japan, our self-definition isn’t based at all on shared ethnicity, culture or religion, but on commitment to liberal principles of democracy and human rights (I said it was idealistic).

4

The word “nation” comes from a Latin root related to birth. I was born in the United States of America, ergo I’m part of the American nation.

5

Fun fact: “nation” and “kingdom” (as well as “nativity”, “genetic”, “kin”) are cognates, ultimately derived from Indo-European “ǵenh₁”

6

That’s absolutely correct. I have lived here for 54 years and not considered a member of the Quebec nation. Only what they call “pure-laine” (literally pure wool), people whose ancestry is entirely (or perhaps mostly) French Canadai count. And successive governments have taken more and more steps to encourage everyone else to leave. In this case, the government decides who is a member of the nation.

But we had next door neighbors whose daughter went to French schools until university when she went to McGill where she studied chemistry. She then got a job. One day some of her coworkers took her aside to explain that, “You’re not one of us. You can never be one of us. It doesn’t matter how well you speak French, you’re not one of us.” Her parents were from Latvia, BTW.

7

The big problem of course is in that second alternative, because, what is “the nation itself”? If we exclude the political nation-state, then who speaks for “the nation”? The majority among them? The powerful among them? The ones with the longest ancestry? An alternate source of institutionality, like a religious denomination?

And that is one of the pitfalls of “national identity”: even if the polity adopted a policy of greater inclusion, those individuals and their near community would probably continue to hold the excluding view. And be perfectly sincere in believing that of course their view is the righteous and good one, and whoever questions it is the one who’s being the jerk.

8

I was born in the East Bay (Northern California), so I’m a member of Raider Nation by jus soli. :pirate_flag: :smirk_cat:

9

I consider myself Zimbabwean, by dint of birth and upbringing.

Due to my pale skin, Zimbabwe does not*. (Or technically, no longer does, I still have ZW ID and several expired passports)

* Technically because I have, like the majority of whites from Zim, a claim to British or South African citizenship, and in fact I have both. I would like my Zim citizenship back though!

10

Nation…what is that, exactly?

It needs some ancient and noble story of how a nation is founded and by whom and…rather importantly - by what right they should rule…

Here is one…it requires a leap of faith.

11

Not necessarily. The connection with birth might suggest that nationality is defined by descent (who you were born to) as much or more than by locus of birth (where you were born). That’s obviously the case for Jews, for example, and also for any nation that has a significant diaspora that it considers to be part of the nation.

I think most or all nations do have an associated country, even if not an associated state, and birth in, or being raised in, that country is a factor that is relevant when considering someone’s nationality. But it’s not the sole factor.

12

Brings up an interesting question - does your self-identification (Which I have no quibble with) trump that of the majority of the nation you claim (assuming “Zimbabwe” represents the majority view which who knows)?

Or think of the converse - when the old SA government declared Black people were citizens of their homelands and not South Africa, did that make a Black person who claimed to be South African wrong?

I’d say that mere politics doesn’t override national identity, and both yourself and the hypothetical Black South African are the nation you claim.

The one question I have, though, is what nationality those who claim to be Rhodesians actually are? That nation doesn’t exist. Does the nationality? If someone claims to be “Yugoslavian”, is that a valid nationality to claim?

13

Well, the OP does caution against confusing nationality and citizenship. Just as not every nation has an associated state, so not every state has an associated nation, or at least a single associated nation. If a nation is defined by shared language, culture, ancestral territory, etc) It may be that, e.g., for people who share Zimbabwean citizenship, their identity as Shona, Ndebele, etc corresponds to the Western concept of “nation” more than their identity as Zimbabwean citizens does. Zimbabwe, in other words, might be best considered as a multinational state.

I don’t know very much about Zimbabwe, so this could be completely wrong. But multinational states certainly do exist - the concept is even built into the name of the Plurinational State of Bolivia - and questions about someone’s nationality aren’t, in general, conclusively answered by pointing to their citizenship. I have dual citizenship myself - one citizenship acquired by birth and descent, and one acquired by naturalisation as a adult - and one of these citizenships tells you a lot more about my nationality than the other does.

If Rhodesia as a nation doesn’t exist, then nobody can possibly have Rhodesian nationality. But, while there is no longer any state named “Rhodesia”, if you have a group of people share language, culture, historical experience, etc and a shared link to a particular country who consider themselves to be Rhodesian, then are they not the Rhodesian nation?

14

This assumes a person can only be a member of one nation, which I don’t agree.

And also, what about people in “multinational” countries that aren’t from any of those sub-nations? There is no Coloured nation in South Africa, for example. Coloured is purely an ethnicity, not a nationality.

South Africa is a multinational state - there is a Zulu nation, Xhosa nation, Boer nation etc. It also is a nation in its own right - there are elements of shared South African culture but even absent that, there is the territory. I consider my nationality to be South African, and would even if I emigrated.

I’m not referencing citizenship when I say I agree @scudsucker is Zimbabwean, I’m referencing their national identity. Territorial nationality, not ethnic nationality, but nationality nonetheless.

Possibly, I’m on the fence right now, that’s why I phrased it as a question. My innate feeling is that a diaspora without a homeland territory isn’t a nation - diaspora Jews still had Israel as a homeland, Desi Indians still have India, but African Americans were divorced from their specific homelands and so don’t constitute a nation IMO. But I can think of counterexamples where I might consider a group a nation absent any territorial connections at all, like say Roma, so there’s more complexity there. But then again, are Roma a diaspora? They’re pretty divorced from their original subcontinental roots.

15

Well, the community that identifies as Rhodesian does have an associated territory - the territory now governed by the Zimbabwe. By the same token Irish people were associated with Ireland, even when Ireland was governed by the UK and there was no state called “Ireland”. And you could make similar points about Germans, Italians, Jews and many others.

I take your point that nationality can be “layered” - you can be both English and British, for example, or Xhosa and South African. And whether these various identities are “nationalities” can be a bit fuzzy at times - “English” clearly is a nationality; “Coloured”, in South African usage, clearly is not. Is “Xhosa”? I don’t know enough to say, but my first recourse for finding out would be to ask Xhosa people whether they consider themselves a nation and, if so, why.

But bear in mind that “nation” is basically a European concept, and it may have less relevance or traction in non-European societies. Quite possibly Xhosa people don’t devote a lot of thought to the question of whether they are a nation or not, or they are only interested in characterising themselves in these terms for the purpose of dealing with people who think in these terms.

16

Technically I am Rhodesian, and have the passport to prove it! (I was born in 1976)

But I absolutely identify as Zimbabwean. Not Shona, not Ndebele, not even “white Zimbabwean” but just Zimbabwean. This identity was often reiterated to me as I went into majority Black townships to drink traditional beer; the idea was very much that I, as a young white guy, was equal to my fellow citizens. Many people I met had the some idea, which argues somewhat to the idea of a nation, citizen or tribe member being conceptually different “nations” as incorrect. It just depends on the circumstance and attitudes of the populance.

It is also easy to nitpick down to clans. Are Shona from the Zezuru clan a different nation from Manyika? From the Karanga or Ndau? I never got that impression; though.

17

Unlike the other territories you mention, there are no Rhodesians still in Zimbabwe, though, nor is there any possibility of Rhodesia returning. I see that as a difference.

I don’t know for sure about the Xhosa (but my instinct is that they do) but the Zulus definitely do consider themselves a nation and have since before they were colonized. The very formation of the nation was a deliberate act of nation-building by Shaka.

18

But the notion that you were equal to your fellow-citizens doesn’t necessarily mean that you all belonged to the same nation; that’s the whole point of a multinational state. English and Scottish people are all equal as British Citizens, but this doesn’t mean that England and Scotland are not distinct nations, and I think you would risk giving offence to some if you asserted that they were not.

I take your point that not every group defined by language or associated with a particular territory is a nation. The indigenous people of the place where I live refer to themselves as the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation; they are all Australian citizens. Here, obviously, the assertion is being made that “Noongar” is a nationality but “Whadjuk” is not. But other indigenous peoples in Australia do not necessarily use the terminology of nationality to describe themselves.

So when do we regard a particular community as a “nation”? I don’t think there’s any one-size-fits-all rule to govern this, but for a start we can say that we don’t regard a community as nation unless, at a minimum, it regards itself as a nation. We can also say that communities most often assert themselves as a nation when they are trying to claim the rights associated with being a nation - not necessarily the right to sovereign independence (although often that) but sometimes lesser rights - the right to recognition/legal status for their language, culture, customs; the right to parity of esteem. Communities which already have those rights may be less vocal about asserting their national identity because they don’t need to. But they don’t need to, ironically, because their identity as a nation is already recognised and respected.

19

Nation seems a pretty ambiguous concept. Some large group associated by some set of shared attributes: territory, language, religion….but those are not exclusive or required.

A sovereign nation state is, however, well defined when it is recognised as such by other nation states. Sovereignty. They are usually defined by territory marked by borders, constitutions, governments and legal frameworks that recognise citizenship.

Nation states are a fairly recent political invention, being not more than a few hundred years old, a European construction? That is open for debate. Peering into history, I am sure we can find many examples of states in ancient times. The Greek city states is an obvious example. Larger nation states became possible once transport technology had evolved sufficiently for people to move around easily. If people never move far from your place of their birth, they develop very localised customs, culture and languages.

Nation states were often built on older political structures like Kingdoms and Empires that had some centralised political authority, but would often be quite unstable. Many modern states were created by consolidating large numbers of smaller kingdoms.

Nation states sometimes break apart because groups within the state decide they want independence and their own sovereignty. Most nation states are troubled by constitutional fault lines that sometime cause them to break apart either peacefully or painfully in bad civil wars.

Nation states often try hard to develop a positive, heroic ‘national identity’ with lots of dancing around flags romantic foundation myths in order to encourage people to accept the central authority of the government. They create patriotic heroes made famous by their triumphs over rival states. Sometimes they try to deal with threats by classifying people according to some criteria. Who is a state national and who is not and allocate rights and privileges to those that are ‘in’ and marginalise those that are ‘out’. Some people can end up as ‘stateless’ and this is rarely a good situation. There are some large groups that a stateless and exist as minorities within larger states. This precarious status is a big disadvantage and has led to persecution and tragedy.

This is politics, but defining a group is much more than that. It can be emotional, cultural, religious. Assigning ‘nation’ to an identity suggests it is on the scale of viable state. It could refer to the old kingdoms on which a state was built. That puts a national identity in competition with a political identity. Or perhaps it is complimentary to it.

National identity can be a whole package of attributes and styles. If we take the political requirements of the nation state to separate sheep from goats out if it what are we left with?

A cultural affinity, a language group, a religion? All of these things do not make it easy to define a nation. The place of your birth? Some people really wanted to escape from that place as soon as they were able and would resent the label. National border have tendency to change pretty frequently.

Do you get to choose to be a member of a nation, like a club membership or is it thrust upon you whether you like it or not?

Nation, outside the current political definition of a nation state and citizenship thereof, is far too ambiguous a term to be useful. Identity is so much more complex.

20

Highlight mine

Germans are from Germany, Italians are from Italy, and Indians are from India. Indians do not need a prefix.

Italians have many many people to be proud of : from DaVinci to DiMaggio, but Columbus is not one of them. Just because Columbus erroneously called any and all Indigenous people Indians, doesn’t mean that Indian people need prefixes.