3 ms·

A more verbose quote from that paper: "What makes nations unique is that they are collectives united by shared cultural features (myths, values, etc.) and the b

A more verbose quote from that paper: "What makes nations unique is that they are collectives united by shared cultural features (myths, values, etc.) and the belief in the right to territorial self-determination. Thus, nations are groups of people linked by unifying traits and the desire to control a territory that is thought of as the group's national homeland. The belief in the right to territorial control is central to distinguishing nations from other collectives. Many groups hold common myths, values, and symbols (e.g., religious groups, ethnic groups, or even professional associations). But nations are not just unified by culture; they are unified by a sense of purpose: controlling the territory that the members of the group believe to be theirs." This is almost identical to the use Bret Devereaux uses in the artice. It is not any shared cultural feature (but e.g. a common origin myth would fit), and the people have to feel a sense of purpose, of common past and future relative to their homeland. As stated in the article, that certainly fits Native American Nations, but not the US as a whole, as Barrington discusses in the next paragraph, "Nation: Misuses".

zhdc1 5y ago
From Devereaux: "A nation... is an entity that is imagined to extend both into the past and into the future, recreating itself, generation to generation; it is through the common birth that the common culture and history are supposedly shared." "Attempting to find a common birth origin for even a slim majority of Americans is a hopeless case." From Barrington: "Also, and more important, nations need not even be based on a certain ethnic identity. Thus, the words "shared cultural features" in the definition of nation above should not be read as "shared ethnic identity." Very few European nation states fit Devereaux's concept of a nation. The Normans (Scandinavian), the Franks (Germanic), and the Galic-Romans (Romanized Celts) all make up a significant part of the historical French population. And yet, even though a majority of French citizens didn't even speak French until the 19th century (compare this against a 75-80% English literacy rate in the US at the same time), no one today would argue that France isn't a nation state.

zhdc1 5y ago

From Devereaux: "A nation... is an entity that is imagined to extend both into the past and into the future, recreating itself, generation to generation; it is through the common birth that the common culture and history are supposedly shared." "Attempting to find a common birth origin for even a slim majority of Americans is a hopeless case." From Barrington: "Also, and more important, nations need not even be based on a certain ethnic identity. Thus, the words "shared cultural features" in the definition of nation above should not be read as "shared ethnic identity." Very few European nation states fit Devereaux's concept of a nation. The Normans (Scandinavian), the Franks (Germanic), and the Galic-Romans (Romanized Celts) all make up a significant part of the historical French population. And yet, even though a majority of French citizens didn't even speak French until the 19th century (compare this against a 75-80% English literacy rate in the US at the same time), no one today would argue that France isn't a nation state.