What defines a nation?

[☭proletarian☭]

What defines a nation? How do we mark its emergence or passing? Is it the system of governance? The common zeitgeist? Lines on a map or a coloured piece of cloth fluttering in the wind?

 

[amrchaos]

A commonality and the ability to defend itself.

Palestine is not a nation, byt the way. Reason is obvious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What defines a nation? How do we mark its emergence or passing? Is it the system of governance? The common zeitgeist? Lines on a map or a coloured piece of cloth fluttering in the wind?

Excellent question!

The primary requirement for nationhood is a declaration of same, defined as sovereignty.

The alternative is one-worldism, represented by giving away to another body the right to abrogate a nations' constitution.

Theodore White stated that a common language is the "glue that holds a nation together."

And your belief?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think that's an interesting question.

Another question, can you have a nation within a nation?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Was Imperial Rome truly the same nation as the Roman Republic?

Is America today truly the same nation in anything but name and lip service as the nation founded by the FF?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I might just be nit picking the academic definitions of the words but I always thought a nation was a group of people who live in a geographical region who have a shared culture, language, history, etc. Where as a state is the political entity that governs a defined region. You can have a government that rules over a heterogeneous territory that encompasses many different groups of people. On the inverse there can be a Nation-State where the government rules over a homogeneous population who inhabit the region, such as Japan or Isreal.

 

[amrchaos]

I think that's an interesting question.

Another question, can you have a nation within a nation?

Yes

I think the entire group is called an Empire--usually there is one central nation that dictates to the rest.

Like the British empire contained not only Wales and Ireland, but at one point, parts of India, China, North America and so forth.


The Roman empire was based in Rome, bu extended the mediteranean Sea and even as far as Britain to Egypt.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

How does the concept of a nation relate to the concept of self-determination and the consent of the governed?

How are we to mark the formulation and passing of nations, as opposed to simply those of states, heads of state, or official systems of governance?

 

[amrchaos]

Was Imperial Rome truly the same nation as the Roman Republic?

Is America today truly the same nation in anything but name and lip service as the nation founded by the FF?

Imperial rome was ruled by an Emperor

The Roman Republic was governed by the Senate.

Same entity, different government.


No--once a nation begin to change the foundations of its laws, it changes into something new. The ammendments to the constitution are the changes that make modern America different from Post-revolutionary America. Also, governmental experiences and strife helped shape modern America. That can be seen as either good or bad depending on your ideas about todays America.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Same entity, different government.

If the border and name are constant, but the fundamental nature of governance and the accompanying ideology change, is it truly the same thing?

No--once a nation begin to change the foundations of its laws, it changes into something new.

Does that not apply to the first half of your post?

 

[amrchaos]

1)How does the concept of a nation relate to the concept of self-determination and the consent of the governed?

2)How are we to mark the formulation and passing of nations, as opposed to simply those of states, heads of state, or official systems of governance?

1--actually, I think that has more to do with ones political prefences and should differ from individual to individual. A bit to philosophical for me to answer in a short post. Try reading some of the more notable Political philosophers and form your own opinoin. I prefer Rouseeau, but I disagreed with some of his formulations.

2)Formulation--when a group of individuals band together and demostrate the ability to maintain their identity and existance as a unified state.

In Passing? When that group ceases to exist in terms of an independent nation.

 

[amrchaos]

Same entity, different government.

If the border and name are constant, but the fundamental nature of governance and the accompanying ideology change, is it truly the same thing?

No--once a nation begin to change the foundations of its laws, it changes into something new.

Does that not apply to the first half of your post?

NO and yes

The Roman empire under the Senate and The Roman empire under the emperor is the same entity, but is something different due to how it is governed. It is like you changing perspectives. You are the same person, but you may operate differently due to the difference in how you see the world with a new set of ideas.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

actually, I think that has more to do with ones political prefences and should differ from individual to individual. A bit to philosophical for me to answer in a short post

Does the answer to this question not have great effect on how we are to understand history?

In Passing? When that group ceases to exist in terms of an independent nation.

And if the nation continues in name and boundaries, yet its fundamental natures is changed and the people who formed it long gone?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Same entity, different government.

If the border and name are constant, but the fundamental nature of governance and the accompanying ideology change, is it truly the same thing?

No--once a nation begin to change the foundations of its laws, it changes into something new.

Does that not apply to the first half of your post?

NO and yes

The Roman empire under the Senate and The Roman empire under the emperor is the same entity, but is something different due to how it is governed. It is like you changing perspectives. You are the same person, but you may operate differently due to the difference in how you see the world with a new set of ideas.

The same body but a different mind?

In the individual, we understand that the electrochemical processes of the brain give rise to the sentient mind which we know as the individual. t is easy to mark its passing, even if its birth is still a mystery. We recognize the evolution of the individual. Your comparison, then, would seem to imply that the two Romes or the two Americas are the same thing, having merely evolved in form and culture. Does that not stand in contrast to your earlier assertions?

 

[amrchaos]

actually, I think that has more to do with ones political prefences and should differ from individual to individual. A bit to philosophical for me to answer in a short post

1)Does the answer to this question not have great effect on how we are to understand history?

In Passing? When that group ceases to exist in terms of an independent nation.

2)And if the nation continues in name and boundaries, yet its fundamental natures is changed and the people who formed it ling gone?

1) History, although told by some one else, is always judged by the perspective of the individual. So it is more on how we judge history as told. Everyone looks at it in their own light.

2) That actually depends--For instance, if one wish to talk of greece, one must realized that the Greeks conquered, were conquered and enslaved and went through processs of freedom and subjugation through its entire existance. In fact, Ancient greece was really a body of ciy-states that fought or allied with each other. Yet one can consider that the Greeks are relatively the same people, and from here one can argue that they share the same history--and assume that the nation existed when in fact there were times that the nation did not exist.


On the other hand, Their cross the Sea Rival Egypt has chnaged hands between peoples for several thousand years. In fact, the Egyptians went through the hands of at least 3 distinct groups of people (with the last being of Greek descent) before 300 a.d.

One may not consider modenr Egypt the same as any of the pre-existing Egypts, yet the modern Egypt has co-opted the history of the earlier Egypts and made it part of their identity. In many ways, this is the same nation, although the ruling people are different.

Then there is the case of certain tribes in the carribean that were wiped out by conquitadores---they no longer exist, and their identities mostly erased. Yet the land and some of their customs do exist and are used today. These tribes wnations, but since they cease to exist, they are nations no longer(notice that some tribes were asorbed or became Europeanized. They took some one else identity and became subjugated

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Then perhaps our fundamental understanding of what is a nation is is flawed and we need some other way of comprehending such interplay of history, culture, ideology, and governance as you have described?