What is a NATION? Yours is probably NOT one!

[Tajir]

I always had this idea and was always one of the few who had a legitimate right to be passionate about this topic, and I was supported by others that this was worthy of a topic.

The question is, of course, what is a nation? Today its been translated as the modern nation-state, but which nation deserve to be countries and on what grounds? Today's borders are all drawn the way the colonialists divided their various holdings around the world but bar that nonsense. Lets get real.

What makes a nation? Not the land, silly, its the people! People who share the same ethnic background, language, culture, and religion constitute a country.

What's an example of a country, a real one? Kurdistan. Why? Look around. They are the same race blood-wise, they share the same language, the same customs, and the same religion. They have a legitimate right to a united nation with borders. Period. This is beyond the current borders drawn, mentally erase those and focus on land masses within whose distances are inhabited by one people who match the above criteria. What are some other examples? Serbia (ALL Serbian-majority lands), Armenia, Pashtunistan, Fulani super-state, Greater Somalia, Zululand, Sweden, Basque country....you get the idea.

What is a fake nation? Pakistan. Why? Multiple ethnic groups, multiple language groups, and multiple cultural traditions abound. Fail Fail Fail! Any other examples? Turkey. Why? The Turks are like a duck that acts like a bird. They think they are European and they think they are Anatolian, when in fact they are not. They belong in Central Asia with their Uzbek and Kyrgyz brethren with whom they share paternal bloodlines, origins, and even religion, not with the largely Western, Christian Anatolian cultures. When you see those ultra-nationalistic Turks, its an act of overcompensation, people tend to do that to convince themselves and others of what they are truly not. Another obvious factor being that they continue to occupy Kurdish land in an attempt to move away from being a purely Turkic nation. Someone should make them aware that 1400 years of occupation does not make them something new. Any last examples in this category? Practically all of Africa with the exceptions of Somalia, the country aptly named for its principle ethnic group.







Discuss.

[Vagn]

I always had this idea and was always one of the few who had a legitimate right to be passionate about this topic, and I was supported by others that this was worthy of a topic.

The question is, of course, what is a country? Today its been translated as the modern nation-state, but which countries deserve to be countries and on what grounds? Today's borders are all drawn the way the colonialists divided their various holdings around the world but bar that nonsense. Lets get real.

What makes a country? Not the land, silly, its the people! People who share the same ethnic background, language, culture, and religion constitute a country.

What's an example of a country, a real one? Kurdistan. Why? Look around. They are the same race blood-wise, they share the same language, the same customs, and the same religion. They have a legitimate right to a united country with borders. Period. This is beyond the current borders drawn, mentally erase those and focus on land masses within whose distances are inhabited by one people who match the above criteria. What are some other examples? Serbia (ALL Serbian-majority lands), Armenia, Pashtunistan, Fulani country, Greater Somalia, Zululand, Sweden, Basque country....you get the idea.

That would be a nation not a country

What is a fake country? Pakistan. Why? Multiple ethnic groups, multiple language groups, and multiple cultural traditions abound. Fail Fail Fail! Any other examples? Turkey. Why? The Turks are like a duck that acts like a bird. They think they are European and they think they are Anatolian, when in fact they are not. They belong in Central Asia with their Uzbek and Kyrgyz brethren with whom they share paternal bloodlines, origins, and even religion, not with the largely Western, Christian Anatolian cultures. When you see those ultra-nationalistic Turks, its an act of overcompensation, people tend to do that to convince themselves and others of what they are truly not. Another obvious factor being that they continue to occupy Kurdish land in an attempt to move away from being a purely Turkic country. Someone should make them aware that 1400 years of occupation does not make them something new. Any last examples in this category? Practically all of Africa with the exceptions of Somalia, the country aptly named for its principle ethnic group.

Again these are examples of states that aren't nations, but then genetically there's no such thing as a nation.

Definition of a country

S: (n) state, nation, country, land, commonwealth, res publica, body politic (a politically organized body of people under a single government) "the state has elected a new president"; "African nations"; "students who had come to the nation's capitol"; "the country's largest manufacturer"; "an industrialized land"
S: (n) country, state, land (the territory occupied by a nation) "he returned to the land of his birth"; "he visited several European countries"
S: (n) nation, land, country (the people who live in a nation or country) "a statement that sums up the nation's mood"; "the news was announced to the nation"; "the whole country worshipped him"
S: (n) country, rural area (an area outside of cities and towns) "his poetry celebrated the slower pace of life in the country"
S: (n) area, country (a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography)) "it was a mountainous area"; "Bible country"

[Orko]

What you are describing is a nation. A country is a political/geographic entity. A Nation is a band of people who share similiar ethnicity, hisotrical heritage, language, territory(usually) and national awareness.

[CarbEast]

A Nation is a band of people who share similiar ethnicity, hisotrical heritage, language, territory(usually) and national awareness.

None of what you mentioned is mandatory for nation to exist, except for the last part. Nation is a group of people with national awareness. It is one of those things that exists only because people believe in it and only while they do it.

[Armfelt]

What you are describing is a nation. A country is a political/geographic entity. A Nation is a band of people who share similiar ethnicity, hisotrical heritage, language, territory(usually) and national awareness.

Or have imagined such.

[0N3]

Funny how you have been here for so long, going under the radar, and then now suddenly go insane.

[removeduser_052420]

That pretty much leaves only like 4 real "countries" in the world.

[Gatsby]

Belgium isn't really a country either, I'll be thinking of false nations constantly now!

[Armenum]

Countries are not always nation-states. Ethnic groups have often been split along political lines, thus forcing them to be included in another country. Over time some of these ethnic groups split off by political lines have developed into their own ethnic group. Moldova and Romania is one example. Remember, political lines can at times be as important as ethnic lines.

[CiviC]

Countries are not always nation-states. Ethnic groups have often been split along political lines, thus forcing them to be included in another country. Over time some of these ethnic groups split off by political lines have developed into their own ethnic group. Moldova and Romania is one example. Remember, political lines can at times be as important as ethnic lines.

Actually the example of Republic of Moldavia and Romania isn't the best as Moldavians have a confuse ethnic identity, some consider they are Romanian some consider they are Moldavians. Older generations were educated by Soviets to beleive they are a different ethnicity and that they speak a different language, "Moldavian", younger generations tend to reject that indoctrination and to consider they are Romanians speaking Romanian. Actually there is no contradiction between being Romanian and being Moldavian, Moldavians are a regional variety of Romanians, as there are Transylvanians, Muntenians, Oltenians, Banatians, etc. Moreover, half of Moldavians live in Romania and they never doubted their Romanian ethnicity or nationality but they are also proud of their Moldavian identity. I'm myself half Moldavian.

[Cold]

Belgium isn't really a country either, I'll be thinking of false nations constantly now!

I disagree, the only thing that really divides Belgium is language... If Politicians finally stop causing division between the Flemish & the Walloons, then maybe we can be a united Belgium honestly i'm so sick of this language division bs...

[Gatsby]

I disagree, the only thing that really divides Belgium is language... If Politicians finally stop causing division between the Flemish & the Walloons, then maybe we can be a united Belgium honestly i'm so sick of this language division bs...

But IIRC there has never been a nation of Belgians. In my opinion Belgium is really just Wallonia and Flnaders holding hands. It's kind of like Britain, there is not really a British ethnicity, but rather just England, Scotland, Wales and some of Ireland together, but then there is not as much of a difference between those groups.

[CiviC]

But IIRC there has never been a nation of Belgians.

Yes there was, in 1830 they were really a civic nation. Then ethnic/linguistic differences started to dig at the foundations of Belgian nation - this shows some of the weakneses of civic nations/multiethnic nations vs ethnic nations. Ethnicity exists since always, it's a constant throughout history, in the case of Belgium it emerged again as a primoridial factor as oil emerges on the surface of water.

I very much doubt the validity of civic nations, they are in fact tools of a certain ethnic nation to assimilate other ethnicities : the French are a nation based on the medieval French ethnicity (speakers of langues d'oil) who assimilated their Southern Occitain cousins and then even non Latin peoples (Alsacians, Bretons, Flemish). The Americans are a ethnicity in the becoming based on Anglo-Saxon identity - all immigrants are learned to relate to founders who are in fact mostly Anglo-Saxons, they identify with early American history though their ancestors had nothing in common with that. I still don't understand why so many people think that ethnicity means mostly ancestry : ethnicity means is in fact what you are raised to be - your ancestors could be Greeks, if you are raised as a Polish, then you are a Polish and if you find out about your ancestry, that's something "exotic" but you still feel a Polish. And ancestry isn't something entierly imagined, because lets say you are an English, but in fact in 1600's your ancestors were French Hugenots refugee in England. You still can't say you don't have English ancestry, because in time, your French ancestors intermarried with locals (English) so in the end even genetically you are assimilated in the majority. But what one must realise is : genes have no ethnicity, your education has.
However there is one major impediment to assimilation : race. If after a few generations any white person with ancestors immigrated in England could pass as ethnically English, it's not viable for Black or Asian. Racial prejudice will prevent total assimilation because it's a given idea - ethnically English = White (as in all cases of European ethnicities, but this reasoning is valable for White persons too, who will never be assimilated to Bantus or Mongols).

[razor-]

The first ones you are talking about is nations, the second you talk about is states. Personally I believe the best thing is if you can combine them to nation-states, having multiple large ethnic groups that can not identify with one another in one state has led to so many conflicts

[alhoon]

While I find this thread mildly offending for a lot of countries, I would take a step here and say what others said. You describe nations, not countries.

Where are you from if I may ask? And why this fascination with "pureblood" countries?

[Vagn]

Where are you from if I may ask? And why this fascination with "pureblood" countries?

The USA apparently, according to his profile, which is hardly a nation-state itself.

[Tajir]

Thanks for the correction guys, I was confused for a while about the interchanged vocab when dealing with nationhood.

Nevertheless, my point states. Nations not founded on the bond of blood ties is a bastard nation just as you would characterize an illegitimate child. In Europe they are the shells of centuries-old monarchist divisions and in the third world they are the shells of former colonialist empires. Borders need to be redefined to reflect the ethnic demographics of a certain people.

I can't see how anyone would disagree. Austria has no legitimacy as a country, get over it. I hope Germany takes over soon. Neither does Belgium nor Switzerland have legitimacy. In the third world, practically the entire fruit is spoiled if you know what I mean. In Europe I understand the pride certain people take in their little bastard states, but why in the third world do people take pride in nations whose borders were defined by foreigners?

What argument do any of you have that the Kurds don't deserve a nation? They have solidarity in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria to band as one nation, and they are organized and clear about their intentions to unite. Yet according to our current worldview they are not a nation. This is the kind of mentality I'm fighting against. We recognize bastard nations like Taiwan and Kosovo but not real nations like Kurdistan. WTF?!

Are you hurt that kurds live in Turkey?

No, I'm hurt that a bunch of leftover Mongol savages from the Steppes are occupying such a strong-willed and determined and deserving people.

[Their Law]

Thanks for the correction guys, I was confused for a while about the interchanged vocab when dealing with nationhood.

Nevertheless, my point states. Nations not founded on the bond of blood ties is a bastard nation just as you would characterize an illegitimate child.

Why the emphasis on ethnic groups. Just because you share a broad genetic link does not mean you think or act alike. Why is a country formed on a political or idealogical consensus any less valid?

In Europe they are the shells of centuries-old monarchist divisions and in the third world they are the shells of former colonialist empires. Borders need to be redefined to reflect the ethnic demographics of a certain people.

So what about the Americas? That's going to be really tricky, with the vast mixing of ethnic groups via colonialism. The USA alone would likely split into dozens of nations.

I can't see how anyone would disagree. Austria has no legitimacy as a country, get over it. I hope Germany takes over soon.

Germany is made up of multiple ethnic groups already, admittedly all closely related but there is a difference between a Bavarian and a Saxon. Austria's legitimacy is founded on it's differing culture and political consensus to remain independent. No new age racial politics on your behalf will alter that.

Neither does Belgium nor Switzerland have legitimacy.

Apart from the fact that they do. Seems to a be a flaw in you're logic here.

In the third world, practically the entire fruit is spoiled if you know what I mean. In Europe I understand the pride certain people take in their little bastard states, but why in the third world do people take pride in nations whose borders were defined by foreigners?

By the third world you mean just Africa or are you extending that to everything non-European or North American, either way you're massive generalisation is wrong.

What argument do any of you have that the Kurds don't deserve a nation?

None. But that argument is based on the fact they WANT a nation of their own, not that their ethnicity entitles them to one.

They have solidarity in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria to band as one nation, and they are organized and clear about their intentions to unite.

Supporting the argument that they are entitled to one because they WANT a nation.

Yet according to our current worldview they are not a nation. This is the kind of mentality I'm fighting against. We recognize bastard nations like Taiwan and Kosovo but not real nations like Kurdistan. WTF?!

Both Taiwan and Kosovo are de facto independent states with their own methods of government and laws. The multiple Kurdish secession movements do not have such a thing. They lack a centralised governmental institution or the ability to enforce law and order across their proposed nation. They are not recognised because there is nothing to recognise at the moment. There is no nation in existence, only nationalist movements in four different countries.

No, I'm hurt that a bunch of leftover Mongol savages from the Steppes are occupying such a strong-willed and determined and deserving people.

By this i assume your making a racial slur at Turkey, which is massively ethnically diverse as a country and owes just as much genetically to Greece and the indigenous Anatolian inhabitants as it does to the Turks. Turkey is not a nation state, though it tried (mostly successfully) to become one by fostering a new ethnic identity.

90% of the countries in the world are not Nation states. Ethnic divisions only matter if you want them to, more important is a shared set of ideological and cultural values which often transcend ethnic divisions.

I suggest you examine you viewpoint on this matter.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Nevertheless, my point states. Nations not founded on the bond of blood ties is a bastard nation just as you would characterize an illegitimate child. In Europe they are the shells of centuries-old monarchist divisions and in the third world they are the shells of former colonialist empires. Borders need to be redefined to reflect the ethnic demographics of a certain people.

Why would they need to be redefined? To go further than nationalism and establish states on ethnic grounds? Please.

I can't see how anyone would disagree.

It's stupid. Legitimacy of a state isn't based on a shared ethnicity.

In Europe I understand the pride certain people take in their little bastard states, but why in the third world do people take pride in nations whose borders were defined by foreigners?

People love their countries because nationalism is a dumb but unifying idea. What's with the fascination with borders? Nationalism can use borders as a historical measure of control, but having modern borders defined by a European state doesn't make the whole nation collapse.

What argument do any of you have that the Kurds don't deserve a nation? They have solidarity in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria to band as one nation, and they are organized and clear about their intentions to unite. Yet according to our current worldview they are not a nation. This is the kind of mentality I'm fighting against. We recognize bastard nations like Taiwan and Kosovo but not real nations like Kurdistan. WTF?!

You can recognise a nation without recognising independence. The nation-state doesn't always come with being a nation.

No, I'm hurt that a bunch of leftover Mongol savages from the Steppes are occupying such a strong-willed and determined and deserving people.

Niiice...

[Theseus1234]

Tajir, you're really advocating the policy of "one nation one State?". That's truly an awful, awful suggestion to be applied uniformly, without looking at the individual cases. Nation-States propagate the absolutely retarded idea of nationalism, which leads to unrestricted patriotism and racism. I feel bad that I'm invoking Godwin's law here, but the idea of "Aryan supremacy" is what "justified" Germany's actions before and during WWII.

Nationalism is just the start to a path of racism and intolerance. Take the Balkans for instance. These are basically nation-States, and they all hate each other. An Albanian in Serbia would be discriminated against at the very least. Nation-States promote problems, not solve them.

What of people who have no defined race? Like half-Asian half-African Americans. Do they not deserve a State because of you're limited view of what should constitute a State? (not to mention that you believe in a very limited view of what does and does not constitute a nation, seeing as you don't recognize the difference between Serbs and Albanians, like the ones involved in the Kosovo split)

Ethnicity is overrated. You don't choose what ethnicity you're born into, so there's no reason to be proud of it. The world has enough intolerance and discrimination problems as it is. Think of much that would be increased if every nation was given a State, and those without a single nation would be disbanded (which, frankly, is a retarded idea). Essentially, you'd be balkanizing the world for the worse.

Legally, a State does not need to be confined to a single nation. A State by definition only needs a population, territory, and a government.