You can see whatever, however you want, Iggy. But in simply ignoring the countless examples of nations not fitting your agenda, you ignore the reality of nationhood, and so your point falls to meaninglessness. Not sure why you say this, since this is known, and to my knowledge, no one here equates nationhood with statehood. Yes, I am aware they are different things. The Holy Roman Empire was not a nation, but a state, whereas "France" was both, as an obvious example. "Nationhood" grew up in the era of mass communication, actually, but this is part of the Imagined Communities work I earlier pointed you towards. If you won't consider these things, we won't get far.
Actually, no, to correct you, you said: And I disabused you of your error: You are ignoring the argument, so let me turn it around to ask you: why, in your world, is Israel a state, but not a nation?
Your problem is that you try to put it in "agenda". It doesn't matter for me do we talk about Israel or Peru or Chile or US or Canada. Nation and state are two different things and you confirmed that. And I will repeat: When I say "state" I mean all those institutions that forms one state: government,military forces, police forces, birocracy etc. Those creations can be good or bad or corrupted but no nations can be that. Or can? What do you think?
I only call it an agenda when I read: By which I read: 1. Israel is a state; 2. It isn't a nation; 3. The reason it isn't a nation is somehow because it is "created," not "primordial." I therefore write variations on the theme: And, ignoring this line of thought rather than addressing it, you bring up examples along the lines of: Which only proves my point: nationhood is a constructed reality. As well, ignoring, again: And the question: This is what I would call an "agenda." So, I will ask again: why in your world is Israel a state, but not a nation? As to your question: I believe I already answered that, with my first post:
Israel isn't a nation because state and nation are different? Therefore, as this applies to every nation-state on earth, no nations exist. As I said, your point is meaningless. "Period." Or, I have learned its best on DP P&R, hopefully, to realize that when discussion yields no fruit, and merely equates to talking to a stone, it is the best thing to simply let go. Cheers.
175.000 croat soldiers on 200.000 serb civilians who happen to have 40.000 men in uniform to protect them all decided to one day hop away to another country LOL...youre really crazy LOL... oh i dont know LOL how about a croat source: http://www.nacional.hr/en/articles/view/36641/ you mean croat titos UDBA?? but wait why is your president stipe mesic accused of obstructing the trial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stjepan_Đureković sniff sniff i smell GREED and LIES i dont hate your nation LOL you dont have one...if you did you would have a language other than serbian...take italy for example they speak: ITALIAN get it? but i dont hate anybody...i just find some things funny and amusing like your "ethnic cleansing day" or "croat nation" or "bosnian nation" and words like "croat" or "bosnian" language...sounds like you are using other peoples diamonds to decorate a fake crown... what does one call a group of people who do not have their own language? im sure theres a word but its not nation...
opprtunists who declare independence make no new nation only a new country/truf...GREED has nothing to do with nationality its an economic motive...
well if i for example raise a peoples army and take control of my building and declare independence im hardly a new nation...i can call myself "klingon" but if i dont speak "klingon" and if im just another serb who speaks serbian but calls it clingon then this hardly qualifies as REAL nationality... REAL nationality is a natural process defined more by peace than by separatism and opportunism...new country yes but new nation?? if you use your own language you are more of a real nation if you use another nations language and territory then i have a hard time seeing them as the same...
sorry i was wrong then... if i declare independence and call myself kingon i am in fact a member of the klingon nation even though i still speak the same language and look/act the same as before... nationality seems to mean nothing you can get it like milk from the shop and call it what you wish...
On the contrary, ATV, I would say this is what you are doing - ascribing "nationhood" to a loosely, and ill-defined (or undefined) set of criteria. It's a very, very basic question. You have distinguished many entities as non-nations, so you must have in mind what defines a nation. If you cannot provide this most simple of conventions - a definition - do you expect anything you say to be considered on the merits?
people can make definitions as they wish and when you stretch the definitions then anything can be a nation: by definition... my point is if you have your own unique language you are more of a nation than somebody who does not and uses somebody elses? just changing government and who you pay tax to is nothing i would associate with nationality but more with greed and economy and politics...
OK, though you still haven't defined what makes nationhood, you seem to be using "language" as a defining criterion. So - Belgium is not a nation-state, then? Canada? All the previous countries using the mother-tongue of a former mother country, now independent - none of these: U.S. Canada Argentina Belize Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Ecuador El Salvador Falkland Islands French Guiana Galapagos Islands Guatemala Guyana Honduras Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela Argentina Belize Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Ecuador Galapagos Islands Guatemala Peru Venezuela -for example - none of these are nation-states? Personally, I call this problematic; when you use your definition in contradiction to the reality as it exists in the world, then, precisely, you are defining the notion into meaninglessness. Consider this: a pretty important notion of "ideal," the willingness to die for it, in contradiction to every natural impulse known to our species, namely self-preservation. What would make members of "a people" - let's call it - not only define themselves by a national label, but be willing to die in the defense of others, appropriating the same label? "Americans" dying for other, unknown "Americans?" I would again raise the example of France. Is France a nation-state?
i dont dispute that theres people who use other peoples language but still feel nationalistic ...i just feel that france is a bit more of a real nation than canada...it feels right for me because france has its own unique language and the canadians use 2 languages borrowed from others... france is a nation-state by definition yes...all the other countries owe their "citizenship" more to separatism/colonialism than they do to real nationalism...maybe im repeating myself here but i see a distinct difference between the economic factors and national factors... a former colony of spain speaking spanish kinda loses its national identity and is not as clear of a nation as spain for example... but on the other hand you have 20 languages in india alone but they are one "nation" ...id call india a group of nations living in one country... language is one of the strongest forms of national identity possible...it should count for something if you still have it (in my opinion)
At the time of the French Revolution, when France became a "nation" and not merely the personal kingdom of the Bourbons, it is estimated that only from 12% (see source below) to around 50% of the populace within the territorial border of "France" spoke French. In fact, the French language was made "France's" language by fiat and legislative decree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France#French_Revolution My point, ATV, is the same to you as to Iggy: there isn't a nation alive that has not constructed some kind of national myth - often, imputing something primordial - to what is, in fact, a constructed reality. "Nation" is an imagined thing, between human beings wishing to declare themselves so, a "nation." For every criterion you would wish to list as necessary in defining nationhood, I would aver I can provide counterexamples, which are, by most reasonable standards, nevertheless in place, establishing "nations."
didnt know this...thats some interesting stuff... constructed reality i agree completely...i see it all around me LOL...its amazing how in my country for example almost overnight yugoslavians became bosnians and croats and slovenians and so on...yugoslavian nationality was very strong in most places it was amazing to see how easily people are manipulated in to hate and paranoia... more amazing is the lack of any real justification for such a sudden change...nationality is just a silly reason to manipulate with people...