3 ms·
>but 'nations' meaning 'geopolitical entities' is as old as record-keeping itself This is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense h
by dublinben 12y ago
>but 'nations' meaning 'geopolitical entities' is as old as record-keeping itself
This is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense have only existed since the 17th Century in Europe[0], and much later in other parts of the world[1]. Before this time, political organizations consisted of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, tribes, and various other small groupings of people.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization
- vacri 12y agoThis is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense Well, I said 'nations', in response to the parent saying 'nations'. I didn't say 'states'. If you are going to be pedantic, then be pedantic correctly. Before this time, political organizations consisted of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, tribes, and various other small groupings of people. I guess places like Egypt, the Roman Empire, and Ming were all 'small groupings of people'? That somehow 'Rome', that stretched from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, was merely a 'city state'? Even after the capital was moved to a different city half a continent away? That despite having a complicated system of senators, emperors, provincial governors (or that they even had the concept of 'provinces'!) and so forth, that there was no 'political organisation'? In the context of the conversation, the OP's 'nations and borders', there's nothing wrong with what I said - 'nations' and 'borders' have been around for as long as we have records.