5 ms·

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

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.
  - tasogare 7y ago
    > ormed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up Some of these elements are indeed needed but not all them at once. There is the flagrant example of Alsatians who chose in 17th century to integrate the kingdom of France despite speaking a Germanic dialect over a religious matter (they were Catholics and German speaking people Protestants).
- incompatible 7y ago
  I could ask, back when Yugoslavia existed, was it a nation? If not, how many nations did it contain? Perhaps there's no single answer, since it depends on which arbitrary method you are going to use to divide people into nations.
  - necovek 7y ago
    Officially, even then it consisted of people of deveral nations: constituting nations of the original Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were, unsurprisingly, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, but plenty of other nations lived in it. Towards the latter stages, there was an attempt to make everybody a member of a "Yugoslav nation", but we all know how that turned out driven by many conflicting interests. Official polls had a large number of "Yugoslavs" (obviously a product of the state, but large here meaning probably 15-25%), but you had minority nations like Hungarians and Slovaks that lived in the area for centuries. While I agree nation is a made up concept, for many a nation it goes back a long time, and it did usually start by differentiating by language (and religion was quickly added into the mix esp in the area). Still, the fact that we can track movement of "nations" between states (eg. large number of Serbs moved to Hapsburg monarchy as Ottomans invaded "Serbia", basically becoming a majority there, thus leading to seccesion movements that led to WW1), means that it can and has been defined for quite a while. While German nation was practically defined as Prussia led unification efforts, there was a concept of Germanic tribes a long time ago. And yes, language was the main denominator, but as civilizations developed, more was added into the mix. After all, language was certainly territorial to begin with, so it is a derived attribute by itself.
kaffeemitsahne 7y ago
>have enough difference to define nations, then what about other regions of the Netherlands There is a province called Friesland (Fryslan) with its own language, I think they can qualify as a nation.

necovek 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
- tasogare 7y ago
  > ormed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up Some of these elements are indeed needed but not all them at once. There is the flagrant example of Alsatians who chose in 17th century to integrate the kingdom of France despite speaking a Germanic dialect over a religious matter (they were Catholics and German speaking people Protestants).
incompatible 7y ago
I could ask, back when Yugoslavia existed, was it a nation? If not, how many nations did it contain? Perhaps there's no single answer, since it depends on which arbitrary method you are going to use to divide people into nations.
- necovek 7y ago
  Officially, even then it consisted of people of deveral nations: constituting nations of the original Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were, unsurprisingly, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, but plenty of other nations lived in it. Towards the latter stages, there was an attempt to make everybody a member of a "Yugoslav nation", but we all know how that turned out driven by many conflicting interests. Official polls had a large number of "Yugoslavs" (obviously a product of the state, but large here meaning probably 15-25%), but you had minority nations like Hungarians and Slovaks that lived in the area for centuries. While I agree nation is a made up concept, for many a nation it goes back a long time, and it did usually start by differentiating by language (and religion was quickly added into the mix esp in the area). Still, the fact that we can track movement of "nations" between states (eg. large number of Serbs moved to Hapsburg monarchy as Ottomans invaded "Serbia", basically becoming a majority there, thus leading to seccesion movements that led to WW1), means that it can and has been defined for quite a while. While German nation was practically defined as Prussia led unification efforts, there was a concept of Germanic tribes a long time ago. And yes, language was the main denominator, but as civilizations developed, more was added into the mix. After all, language was certainly territorial to begin with, so it is a derived attribute by itself.

kaffeemitsahne 7y ago

>have enough difference to define nations, then what about other regions of the Netherlands There is a province called Friesland (Fryslan) with its own language, I think they can qualify as a nation.