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.
Of course nations are cultural constructs. What else could they possibly be?
Some nations are functionally based in race, whether or not they openly defer to this definition (some do, some don't) or other people agree or disagree.
Quote:
Nationalism, the idea that you should identify with a nation and owe allegiance
to it, even - that is a fairly recent idea.
Only if you are defaulting to a semantic argument of the use of the term "Nation". One can only give credit to this type of argument if they are deficient in their concept of "Nation"; as the definition can be applied to groups going as far back as we can speak to in regard to human history. The first "nation" was the first family unit, then the community of families that chose to cooperate for better survival outcomes. Such a group is sometimes called a tribe, which is correctly synonymous with the modern usage of "Nation". See, we didn't even have to deeply plumb the logic to illustrate just how old the nation concept is. People have been acting as nations for as long as they have been cooperating on any population level. This has been a long, long time. Any statement to the contrary is the silliest of liberal inanities. But, I get it. We have to discredit human history to build our dystopic world of cultural and political individualism.
Quote:
Not touching the race thing, but of course you can define the exact
prerequisites for being a meber of a nation. Start with the simple question:
Will the nation issue you a passport? Congrats, you're a true member.
This is all easily proven to be wrong. No one can define who functionally participates in a nation but the members of the nation themselves. Whether or not you are apart of a nation is decided by the broader behavior of the other nationalists toward you. You will quickly know if you are in or out. Countries issue passports. You conflated "nation" with "country". These are different concepts. Sometimes, countries are comprised of one or mostly one nation, and thus it would be tangentially correct to state that a "nation" issued you a passport. Though, often this is not the case and thus it would not be true. Would you ever say that the Jewish Nation issued you a passport? Your statement falls apart upon examination.
Yes, but for the time being nation-states are a necessary evil. I am an anarchist in the grand scheme of things, but I understand that government is necessary as it stands now. Maybe as we evolve we'll get away from out need for central government, but that day is generations away.
As long as one nation exists, it necessitates the existence of all nations lest the cacophony of nationless individuals be controlled by that single insular and thus powerful nation. All nations will never be erased. Thus, we will never have a nationless planet. You shouldn't even want such a thing unless you are content to be controlled by people who are forever more powerful than you, without any accountability or participation owed to you whatsoever. Nations are, more than anything else, protective against other exploitative and aggressive nations.
The human tendency is toward nation forming, even at the smallest levels. Your worldview, thus, would require a forever war against this instinct in humans. If such a thing were even possible, which it is not, it would be utterly inhumane. The rational view is to create a world of harmonious international cooperation, not a world without nations. Everyone deserves a home.
Only if you are defaulting to a semantic argument of the use of the term "Nation".
We're discussing the definition of the term, of course it's semantics.
Quote:
One can only give credit to this type of argument if they are deficient in their concept of "Nation"; as the definition can be applied to groups going as far back as we can speak to in regard to human history. The first "nation" was the first family unit,
Oh, I see. We just need to expand the definition of "nation" to encompass any grouping, ever, and so, presto: Nations have always existed. Absurd.
We're discussing the definition of the term, of course it's semantics.
Oh, I see. We just need to expand the definition of "nation" to encompass any grouping, ever, and so, presto: Nations have always existed. Absurd.
Your comments are what are absurd. If we hypothetically had this thing called an "automobile" for 50 years, and from then for the next 50 years we invented a new term and called it a "car", would that mean that "cars" existed for 50 or 100 years? The definition of the object or concept, or more specifically the conceptual notion of an object or concept, is the object or concept as we express it in image / thought. Whatever dictionary word that you use for it is as trivial as it gets. Usually middle school kids get this. I'm surprised that it is an argument here. Again, utterly absurd and, frankly, embarrassing for you.
There is no expansion of the term. There is only a correction of your idiosyncratic neoliberal and ahistorical definition, partly along the lines of logical pattern identification. Again, pattern recognition is a sign of intelligence. Nations are socio-politically cooperating groups, no more and no less. How many historical and modern exceptions to your wrong definition do you require? Countries are legal entities with borders.
This isn't even a debate. This is an objectively wrong concept vs. simple, logical, and accepted truth. However, carry on.
Sorry, but insisting that family units and nations are equivalent is patently ridiculous. Cite one reference work that defines the word "nation" in terms that could mean "family unit"?
Quote:
This isn't even a debate.
Indeed. Also, drop the attempts at patronizing, it's not working.
Sorry, but insisting that family units and nations are equivalent is patently ridiculous. Cite one reference work that defines the word "nation" in terms that could mean "family unit"?
Indeed. Also, drop the attempts at patronizing, it's not working.
"Patently ridiculous"? Your command of the English language as well as the social sphere and politics are all wanting.
Cite? As in research? As in social theory "research"? As in cite something that isn't researchable but is merely a definition? You really are a challenge to debate.
That's patronizing, fyi. You seem to have trouble parsing language on this account, as well. Me telling you that this "isn't a debate" is not patronizing. It's merely my opinion that this is a fact, as further evidenced by your failed attempt to have to meet some burden of "proof" in a discussion on sociopolitical definitions. Such definitions are the core of the political debate in the 20th and 21st centuries, unfortunately. If we had an actual unified Nation, these definitions would not be up for debate.
To entertain your inability or unwillingness to think out the logic of the connection between Nations and Family, I will suggest that you reduce the concept of Nation to its form in a smaller population. What is that? It's a series of sociopolitcally connected communities. What do we get when we reduce further? A socio-politically connected community. What do we get when we reduce further? Sociopolitically connected individuals in a family. You'd have to deny that a Nation has nothing to do with sociopolitics to refute my assertion that a family is a national microcosm and the foundational block of what most people view to be a Nation. All of the most successful and strongest nations know this, and thus promoting family values is a defining feature within the successful nation. See the Jewish Nation for a good example.
A more dysfunctional example is organize crime. These people operate within other Nations but, on a microcosmic level, operate a separate nation against the mainstream community at large. It can also be said, then, that they operate against the interests of the greater Nation. They are at once a community and a Nation, and often a family. All of these connections are fundamentally the same for this group. And so it goes for all true Nations. They only substitute success from family values for success through brute, illegal force.
As a matter of record, I don't care what you have to say on this issue. I know that I'm absolutely correct on this matter, that history and observable reality backs me up, and I don't care if you care to be wrong, for whatever delusional or self serving reason that you have. We can agree to disagree. Carry on. Though, it can be said for certain that we are not of the same Nation.
Sociopolitically connected individuals in a family. You'd have to deny that a Nation has nothing to do with sociopolitics to refute my assertion that a family is a national microcosm and the foundational block of what most people view to be a Nation.
Sociologically speaking you would be on far firmer ground if the argument was Nation, city-state, tribe. Only in the most broadest of terms can a family be described as the diminutive version of any of the above. What distinguishes a family from any of the aforementioned political entities is that tribes, city-states and nations are consensual political entities something that I would argue that families are not.
The basic premise behind the claim that race is fake is that races cannot be precisely defined (what is "black" and what is "white" etc) and that they are basically social constructs, and thus fake. But this got me thinking, if this is true then doesn't that mean that basically all forms of identity are fake? What is an "American"? What is a "British" person? You can't apply a scientific definition to those words. Nations are basically cultural constructs just like race is. Now of course both nations as well as races share some degree of common heritage, but the fact remains that it's not possible to define exactly what prerequisites a person must fulfill in order to be a "true" member of race X or nation X. To me it does not make sense to claim races are fake because they are constructed and yet still believe at the same time that nations are real even though they are also constructs. If rallying around the idea of race is evil then why is it ok to also rally around the idea of the nation?
They're both social constructs. As a member of the society that constructed them ignore/embrace/whatever as you wish.
"Patently ridiculous"? Your command of the English language as well as the social sphere and politics are all wanting.
It is my second language, admittedly. Then again, the OED has "patently ridiculous" as an example of the usage of "patently", so I think I'm in reasonably good company there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary
patently
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: pat·ent·ly
Pronunciation: /ˈpat(ə)n(t)lē/ /ˈpāt(ə)n(t)lē/
Definition of patently in English:
adverb
[USUALLY AS SUBMODIFIER]
Clearly; without doubt:
these claims were patently false
a law that is patently ridiculous
My bolding. Oh, and it's used as an example in the Advanced Learner's Dictionary as well.
Quote:
Cite? As in research? As in social theory "research"? As in cite something that isn't researchable but is merely a definition?
Well, yes?
Quote:
That's patronizing, fyi. You seem to have trouble parsing language on this account, as well. Me telling you that this "isn't a debate" is not patronizing. It's merely my opinion that this is a fact, as further evidenced by your failed attempt to have to meet some burden of "proof" in a discussion on sociopolitical definitions. Such definitions are the core of the political debate in the 20th and 21st centuries, unfortunately. If we had an actual unified Nation, these definitions would not be up for debate.
It is not a debate, yet if we had a unified Nation, it would not be up for a debate. I see.
Quote:
To entertain your inability or unwillingness to think out the logic of the connection between Nations and Family, I will suggest that you reduce the concept of Nation to its form in a smaller population. What is that? It's a series of sociopolitcally connected communities. What do we get when we reduce further? A socio-politically connected community. What do we get when we reduce further? Sociopolitically connected individuals in a family. You'd have to deny that a Nation has nothing to do with sociopolitics to refute my assertion that a family is a national microcosm and the foundational block of what most people view to be a Nation. All of the most successful and strongest nations know this, and thus promoting family values is a defining feature within the successful nation. See the Jewish Nation for a good example.
All well and good. But what you actually typed - I can scroll up and see it, you know - was this:
Quote:
The first "nation" was the first family unit, then the community of families that chose to cooperate for better survival outcomes. Such a group is sometimes called a tribe, which is correctly synonymous with the modern usage of "Nation". See, we didn't even have to deeply plumb the logic to illustrate just how old the nation concept is. People have been acting as nations for as long as they have been cooperating on any population level.
Again, my bolding. That is very different statement from saying that a family "is the foundational block of what most people view to be a Nation".
Cells are foundational blocks of what most people view to be elephants, but that doesn't make a cell an elephant. Families are by definition not tribes and tribes by definition not nations.
Quote:
As a matter of record, I don't care what you have to say on this issue.
Clearly.
Quote:
I know that I'm absolutely correct on this matter, that history and observable reality backs me up
Well, if you know you're not just correct but absolutely correct, then I guess you're excused from presenting an argument.
Quote:
...and I don't care if you care to be wrong, for whatever delusional or self serving reason that you have. We can agree to disagree. Carry on. Though, it can be said for certain that we are not of the same Nation.
Nations, unlike races, are governed by enforceable laws that specifically define who is and who isn't a citizen of that nation. It's completely possible to define who has met the prerequisites to be a member of a nation.
Such a simple answer to the bizarre question of this thread.
I have no idea what people are still talking about on it, but this is the answer to the OP.
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.
