
What Is a Nation? (2015) - brandonlc
https://notesonliberty.com/2015/03/30/what-is-a-nation/
======
docdeek
When I taught first year International Relations one of the early lectures
covered the difference between state, country, and nation. Although used
interchangeably by politicians, in IR the state is a political structure of
which there are only about 200 in the world, mostly recognized by other states
as being such, and with the legitimate recourse to the use of force (plus a
couple of other factors). A country was a geographic reference - think Wales
or the Basque Country, or Switzerland because a country and a state can share
the same geography (and often do). A nation was not about political
organisation or geography but a shared identity - sometimes ethnic, sometimes
religious, sometimes nationalist - between a group of people.

Hence the US could be a single state and country, while being inhabited by
many nations (American, Sioux, Apache etc). The UK could be a single state
made up of multiple countries and inhabited by people identifying as members
of many nations.

And occasionally you'll have a case where you have a distinct nation that has
a well defined country (say Tibet) but is not recognized as a state.

~~~
burfog
So you'd say West Virginia is a country but not a state, and every Chinatown
is a nation? I don't think your definitions match the accepted reality in the
American English language.

~~~
dredmorbius
The definitions given are well-established:

Country:

 _A tract of land; a region; the territory of an independent nation; (as
distinguished from any other region, and with a personal pronoun) the region
of one 's birth, permanent residence, or citizenship._

[http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=cou...](http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=country)

State:

 _A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people who are united
under one government, whatever may be the form of the government; a nation._

[http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sta...](http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=state)

Nation:

 _A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest
by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock._

[http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=nat...](http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=nation)

------
lixtra
A long text that comes to a trivial conclusion:

 _What is a nation? I argue that it is a group label that is invented and
sustained in so far as it serves to further the goals of elites. Within an
individual’s lifetime they appear unchanging, but from a historical
perspective they are fluid and are frequently created, killed, or reborn as
needed. When conversing about geopolitics we cannot ignore national identity,
but we must keep in mind that in the long run nationality can be, and is,
molded to suit political goals._

Nations are a political entity. What else would you expect. The same thing can
be said about laws or morals or religion or ...

~~~
incompatible
The argument is that states are a political entity, nations are a cultural
entity. I'm more attached to the English language than I am to any particular
state.

Edit: Apart from language, I can't think of any other cultural attribute which
is strong enough to define a nation.

~~~
tasogare
Yet you have nations with members speaking different languages (Switzerland,
Belgium) as well as people speaking a common language split into multiple
nation state (Germany/Austria, Romania/Moldova).

~~~
incompatible
Switzerland and Belgium are both states. I don't think it would be much of a
stretch to consider the Flemish and Walloons to be different nations, although
then I'd wonder if they'd merge with the Dutch and French instead.

If you'd consider the Dutch and Flemish to have enough difference to define
nations, then what about other regions of the Netherlands, or the different
counties of the UK?

~~~
necovek
Uhm, I read tasogare's response as an argument contradicting your original
summary how language is a good criteria to define nations.

You now seem to be diving into their examples to, in essence, agree with them:
language itself is not a good common property to define a nation.

Coming from Serbia and speaking Serbian (but not Croatian or Bosnian, though
we'd understand each other as if we are speaking the same language ;)), even
language is a term used for political purposes, but what you make of it in
relation to defining a "nation" is up to you.

~~~
incompatible
I think basically, we know what states are, and often use "nation" as a
synonym for state. But some people try to use "nation" to mean something else,
such as Wikipedia would have it: "A nation is a stable community of people,
formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or
psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Although, personally, I'd find language to be the only thing there that I'd
care about

~~~
squiggleblaz
I don't think that's right. I think, for the most part, we're familiar with
nation states, so we've changed the meaning of nation to mean "the people of a
nation state". But in other parts of the world, for instance in Eastern
Europe, you have people who are clearly Russians but citizens of other post
Soviet states. There, you have a question about a nation and a state that do
not correspond.

States speak of administration; nations speak of common bonds. States seek to
turn their diverse populations into a common nation because it will create
stability. But when some of the people who are subject to your administration
feel a common bond with hundreds of millions of people on the other side of a
somewhat arbitrary line, this may be an impossible or undesireable task.

~~~
incompatible
Yes, we also have situations where a group of people have decided that they
are a nation and really want an independent state: such as in Scotland,
Catalonia, the Kurds, or Tibet: supporters of the existing state may even
accuse them of wanting to "split the nation".

The idea of nationalism, that states and nations should coincide, was only
partly implemented. There are numerous groups, including indigenous peoples of
the Americas and Pacific or the numerous groups of India which never obtained
their own states.

------
stereolambda
This is an interesting article depending, among others, on how your (personal?
"national"?) language defines nations and states. I find it hard to map my
concepts into English words "ethnicity", which seems related to race, and
"nationality", which seems related to states, while nations are ultimately
neither.

If your nation used to make you a second-class citizen in foreign states,
which is somewhat typical in Eastern Europe, you do have a sharp distinction
between nations and states. I.e. nations can live under yoke of different
states. In this states, your nation can/could make you an "invader" (funny how
it's hard in English to find a word emotional enough to call someone who
formerly conquered you!) or a "traitor" (Poles in Russian Empire), or a
primitive "barbarian" unworthy of fully participating in our, you know, higher
civilization (Poles in German Empire).

Intuitively, your nation is defined partly by your name (see Lithuanian
actions to lithuanize Slavic names of citizens) and received language and
culture. Funny how the OP seriously considers a "blood and race" understanding
of nation, which I think in Europe is a fast road to Godwin law. Aside from
being nonsensical, it just feels morally repulsive.

For the record, I do think that the European concept of nation does more harm
not good, and in an ideal world we should replace it with civic identification
with your free republic. But it does serve as an instrument to organize people
for political action. This can be sometimes legitimately good.

Especially I find the OP's critique of American Revolution trite. For a long
time now it's fashionable ot thrash both American and French Revolutions,
while without them there would be no strong examples for people throughout the
world to question power. (They were themselves based on ancient examples, but
for them you need classical education.) Our world would be much more horrible
without that.

------
buboard
And let's remember that nations are based on our ability to willingly forget
our dark past

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_a_Nation%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_a_Nation%3F)

------
rayiner
> What is a nation? I argue that it is a group label that is invented and
> sustained in so far as it serves to further the goals of elites.

I’m pretty tired of hearing thoughts on nations and nationalism from a
generation of westerners who are privileged enough not to remember why we have
nations and nationalism. Ask the Uyghurs or Tibetans or Kurds what is a
nation. Ask Israelis or Bangladeshis. You’ll get a sensible answer.

~~~
alexro
Kurds aren't a nation, they're different tribes. Have different views, speak
different languages/dialects

------
john_d0e
> What Is a Nation?

"A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on
the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological
make-up manifested in a common culture."

[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm)

