5 ms·

I feel like I see people being pedantic about "nation-state" and how the US isn't one quite frequently in the last few years and while it's not something that c

I feel like I see people being pedantic about "nation-state" and how the US isn't one quite frequently in the last few years and while it's not something that can be proven in an airtight manner, it's bordering on some sort of political statement to insist. It seems that the UK, Israel, and Pakistan are considered nation-states. Is the US more like them, or more like the Ottoman Empire? Saying that the US is obviously not a nation-state, seems like denying that there is an American identity the way that there is an Israeli one.

chrisseaton 5y ago
The UK is a typical example of something that isn’t a nation-state - it explicitly has ‘the nations’ within it. The US also formally recognises multiple nations within it such as the Navajo Nation. But for example a country like Japan doesn’t formally recognise nations within it (as far as I know?) and is a typical example of a nation-state.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  My point is just that rampant pedantry implies anyone who isn't one of the "ignorant masses" agrees on the consensus classification method. In reality, there is no consensus, as you prove here by confidently categorizing countries differently from others. “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    It's like saying '2013 blue Ford Fusion' and then when someone points out it's actually a green Dodge complaining that they're being pedantic. Why be so bizarrely overly specific? Would have been less work to be more generic.
seoaeu 5y ago
Pedantically, the word "nation" in nation-state refers to a specific grouping of people. One which has a single shared history, ethnicity, culture, etc. The US is multicultural with citizens from a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds, so under that definition it doesn't qualify
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  That's ridiculous, all Western countries are multicultural these days. Kansas is likely more white than Paris.
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    Yes, these days all counties are multicultural to some degree, and it is hard to draw a clear cutoff. The Wikipedia page uses 85% of the state being a single predominant group as a dividing line, but recognizes some special cases as well. However, if all of France had the demographics of Paris it would be far below that threshold and in fact would not be considered a nation-state.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  It is very simple to justify when you consider the US alone. However, if you choose virtually any other countries that you might consider to be nation-states, then you could describe them in the same manner. The way I read your definition, you describe two polarities, which lend themselves to any conclusion about any country, depending on which is emphasized. I felt like the UK, Pakistan, and Israel were three good examples of countries claimed by some to be nation-states that show the definition is complicated and subjective. And indeed, it already was denied that the UK is a nation-state, in this thread!
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    Totally agree, the definition is complicated and subjective! Really more of a spectrum than a clear binary. You could certainly argue that the US has a "shared history" that unites its various ethnic groups, thereby making it a single nation. Or you could argue that different racial groups and immigrant communities have had sufficiently distinct experiences that they shouldn't be lumped together.
slim 5y ago
Israel is a wrong example too. Since it's an example of a State established on a foreign Nation since the colonization of Palestine. It's actually a very useful example to illustrate the difference between State and Nation. One could argue that a nation can be built in 73 years, but for the purpose of your argument you should have chosen France, Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.. unless I misunderstood your argument.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >Israel is a wrong example too. To be clear, Israel is an example of a country that is claimed to be a nation-state. I didn't intend to say it is or isn't, so I use the passive voice on purpose. If you think it is not, that is further proof that nobody agrees on definitions or classifications.
specialist 5y ago
IIRC, historian Jill Lepore argues the USA is, uniquely, a state-nation in that the state preceded the coherent self identity as a nation. ...Since we're pendanting. Not relevent wrt cybersecurity, spy-vs-spy, and national governments.

chrisseaton 5y ago

The UK is a typical example of something that isn’t a nation-state - it explicitly has ‘the nations’ within it. The US also formally recognises multiple nations within it such as the Navajo Nation. But for example a country like Japan doesn’t formally recognise nations within it (as far as I know?) and is a typical example of a nation-state.

perl4ever 5y ago
My point is just that rampant pedantry implies anyone who isn't one of the "ignorant masses" agrees on the consensus classification method. In reality, there is no consensus, as you prove here by confidently categorizing countries differently from others. “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  It's like saying '2013 blue Ford Fusion' and then when someone points out it's actually a green Dodge complaining that they're being pedantic. Why be so bizarrely overly specific? Would have been less work to be more generic.

seoaeu 5y ago

Pedantically, the word "nation" in nation-state refers to a specific grouping of people. One which has a single shared history, ethnicity, culture, etc. The US is multicultural with citizens from a diverse range of ethnic backgrounds, so under that definition it doesn't qualify

MomoXenosaga 5y ago
That's ridiculous, all Western countries are multicultural these days. Kansas is likely more white than Paris.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  Yes, these days all counties are multicultural to some degree, and it is hard to draw a clear cutoff. The Wikipedia page uses 85% of the state being a single predominant group as a dividing line, but recognizes some special cases as well. However, if all of France had the demographics of Paris it would be far below that threshold and in fact would not be considered a nation-state.
perl4ever 5y ago
It is very simple to justify when you consider the US alone. However, if you choose virtually any other countries that you might consider to be nation-states, then you could describe them in the same manner. The way I read your definition, you describe two polarities, which lend themselves to any conclusion about any country, depending on which is emphasized. I felt like the UK, Pakistan, and Israel were three good examples of countries claimed by some to be nation-states that show the definition is complicated and subjective. And indeed, it already was denied that the UK is a nation-state, in this thread!
- seoaeu 5y ago
  Totally agree, the definition is complicated and subjective! Really more of a spectrum than a clear binary. You could certainly argue that the US has a "shared history" that unites its various ethnic groups, thereby making it a single nation. Or you could argue that different racial groups and immigrant communities have had sufficiently distinct experiences that they shouldn't be lumped together.

slim 5y ago

Israel is a wrong example too. Since it's an example of a State established on a foreign Nation since the colonization of Palestine. It's actually a very useful example to illustrate the difference between State and Nation. One could argue that a nation can be built in 73 years, but for the purpose of your argument you should have chosen France, Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.. unless I misunderstood your argument.

perl4ever 5y ago
>Israel is a wrong example too. To be clear, Israel is an example of a country that is claimed to be a nation-state. I didn't intend to say it is or isn't, so I use the passive voice on purpose. If you think it is not, that is further proof that nobody agrees on definitions or classifications.

specialist 5y ago

IIRC, historian Jill Lepore argues the USA is, uniquely, a state-nation in that the state preceded the coherent self identity as a nation. ...Since we're pendanting. Not relevent wrt cybersecurity, spy-vs-spy, and national governments.