Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting point, jtur88. So, say, those people in New England, or Florida, or even within the Smoky or Rocky mountains, could conceivably follow their own brand of 'patriotism', to the exclusion of each other? We all joke about "the East Coast" and "the Left Coast", or the South and North, or the Midwest or Great Plains attitudes toward life. But basically perhaps that Russian professor is right - different people from different areas could actually be split along geographic as well as socially interactive lines.
As such, a "territory" might have a greater claim to the patriotism of its inhabitants than a "nation", since the people of a territory are bound together by a natural enclosure, whereas people of a nation have, as often as not, been bound together involuntarily as the spoils of war. A person in Guiana or Hiawaii or Scotland might have a more compelling argument for defense of that "territory" as an article of patriotism, than for the country within which it politically has been colnsigned.
But aren't nations and territory not 1 and the same? Don't all nations claim territory?
Is it even possible to have a nation that does not claim a territory?
But aren't nations and territory not 1 and the same? Don't all nations claim territory?
But not all territories claim nationhood. Which, by Logic 101, makes them "not the same".
I don't recall saying that some nations do not claim territory. What I intended to say (obviously not very clearly) is that some territories are populated by strongly linked peoples who are either a part of a larger nation, or are fragmented by different nations, sometimes at war with each other.
All nations claim "climatic zones", but that doesn't make a nation and a climatic zone the same thing. I don't think.
So, say, those people in New England, or Florida, or even within the Smoky or Rocky mountains, could conceivably follow their own brand of 'patriotism', to the exclusion of each other? .
If the people of Florida were not mostly immigrants from other USA regions, that argument could be made---as it sometimes is about Texas. In the case of Puerto Rico, it is often made.
In the case of USA territories, they were absorbed into the USA without regard to any people who had lived there previously, the only people who "count" were Euro-Americans from the get-go. But it quite a different matter to Basques and Kurds and Tibetans. You can't arrange the entire world as if it were all the USA and say the rules that we have grown to be comfortable with must be rigorously enforced, in spite of cultural ties that predate America by millennia. I cautioned against doing that in the OP.
But not all territories claim nationhood. Which, by Logic 101, makes them "not the same".
The thing is that you can't be a nation without a territory; you need an actual physical focal point to keep the idea of a nation intact.
Even the Jews who had wandered all over the Earth for several centuries acknowledged that they needed a homeland of their own.
Especially after what happened in WWII.
In short a nation (as an idea) needs actual people and people need real space as supposed to 'virtual' space.
Originally Posted by jtur88 The thing is that you can't be a nation without a territory; you need an actual physical focal point to keep the idea of a nation intact.
Even the Jews who had wandered all over the Earth for several centuries acknowledged that they needed a homeland of their own.
Especially after what happened in WWII.
In short a nation (as an idea) needs actual people and people need real space as supposed to 'virtual' space.
I'm arguing with third graders. How many different ways can I say this. The Scots have territory but no nation. The Hawaiians. The Basques. The Kurds. The Tibetans. The Hmong. The Bambera. The Lapps. The Assamese. The Tuaregs. A nation and a territory ARE NOT THE SAME THING
If people feel a stronger affinity with those of their territory than with those in the capital who show up only to collect the taxes or press an army, what they feel is PATRIOTISM. For their territory.
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker Are you saying that it was unpatriotic for white Americans in the 1950's to agree with their black countrymen that they should get equal citizenship?
How stupid are you? Petitioning for the rights of others is very patriotic in a country thats suposed to respect citizens rights above all else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But aren't nations and territory not 1 and the same? Don't all nations claim territory?
Is it even possible to have a nation that does not claim a territory?
Are you saying that it was unpatriotic for white Americans in the 1950's to agree with their black countrymen that they should get equal citizenship?
