Why do people keep perpetuating the "National identity didn't

>>2598215
The entire Old Testament is a nationalist text.

Basically they're globalists who want to discredit nationalism.

Because nationalism is an enemy of both revolutionary communism and globalism, the two main intellectual traditions in the world today, towards which most historians adere to.

Because it didn't. Do you really think a farmer in 18th century Denmark had a national identity or even understood the notion of nationhood? He would primarily identify with whatever village he was from or farm or family.

>>2598342
Bûter, brea en griene tsiis: wa't dat net sizze kin, is gjin oprjochte Fries.

>>2598342
Iceland has had language purity reforms since the 17th century.

>By the 16th century, the language was so differentiated from the languages spoken in Scandinavia that Icelanders coined the term íslenska to denote their native tongue. A serious effort to preserve the now quite distinct Icelandic from the "corrupting" influences of foreign words, especially by the Danish and German merchants who dominated Iceland's trade, began in the early 17th century thanks to Arngrímur Jónsson.

>18th and 19th centuries
>The first real instigator of Icelandic linguistic purism (hreintungustefna) was Eggert Ólafsson (1726–1768). Between 1752 and 1757 he accompanied his friend Bjarni Pálsson on an expedition through Iceland. In his report, he described the situation of the Icelandic language as lamentable. This inspired him to write the poem Sótt og dauði íslenskunnar, in which he personifies his mother tongue as a woman, who has fallen mortally ill through an infection with too many foreign words. She sends her children to look for good and pure Icelandic that can cure her, but uncontaminated language is nowhere to be found, and she dies. At the end of the poem he urges his compatriots to defend their language and reminds them of the great esteem in which Icelandic is held abroad and how well it has been preserved by their forefathers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism_in_Icelandic

>>2598215
Because for the most part, its completely correct.

>>2598415
>>2598389
Language doesn't equal nation.
A stranger comming to a village would be percieved with extreme suspicion, regardless of what language he spoke. He wouldn't be considered a countryman or part any other form of imagined community.

>>2598446
>A stranger comming to a village would be percieved with extreme suspicion, regardless of what language he spoke. He wouldn't be considered a countryman or part any other form of imagined community.
That even happens today, you retard.

>>2598342
A village is a nation.

>>2598215
Because people are stupid. As long as people had contact with other tribes and countries, peoples and religions, they've formed an identity to distinguish themselves from others.

>>2598458
Depends on where you are. In countries with less developed nation building, sure.

>>2598446
>people don't trust strangers
>therefore the idea of common nationality doesn't exist

Protip: Villages didn't magically stop being suspicious of outsiders after some magic point in the 19th century where suddenly everyone realized that they were part of distinct cultural groups.

>>2598466
Do I detect a "no true villager" argument?

>>2598467
After people starting attending school where they were taught a standardized curriculum, such as language, history of the nation and relegion, people surprisingly developed a shared understanding. You know, a shared culture.
You can just go back in the sources and litterally see when academics started 'creating' the nation. Which was then taught to the people of said nation.

National identity follows government schools, it doesn't go the other way around.

>>2598415
Language purity doesn't indicate nationalism

>1 guy in the 1750s indicates that the entire people of Iceland had a created concept of Iceland and were devoted to it.
There were a few thinkers with nationalist concepts, but it wasn't until the 19th century, outside partially of Britain and France and to some proto-nationalist extent the Netherlands that it was a mass movement and hence a "national identity".

>>2598487
>Some academics redefined their common culture at a certain point in history in the past
>therefore common culture did not exist prior to then

>>2598466

Nation building performed by who?

Nations are a tool rulers use, like religion. The trick is that they pretend you share blood, rather than souls.

>>2598560
>>2598676
There wasn't a 'nationwide' common culture before that, other than shared religious believes.
Nation building performed by the elites. Do you think peasents knew about national heroes and national history before it was created by intellectuals in the 18th and 19th century?

>>2598710

Of course not. Nationwide common culture is invented by rulers and imposed.

>Do you think peasents knew about national heroes and national history before it was created by intellectuals in the 18th and 19th century?

Why would they? They had their own customs, destroyed by the process you're describing.

>>2598728
I know? But the discussion is whether or not nations were created in the 18th century, basically a product of the french revolution, or if it existed in the middle ages as well.

>>2598745

The way we mean nations was invented in the C18th, AFTER Westphalia, not BEFORE.

Before then we had continuums of culture that did not really end at manmade borders. Each village was likely closer to it's neighbors than any were to their official capital.

>>2598461
/thread

>>2598215
Because it's true

>>2598495
basically this. I think a "political nation" existed in many countries though. France had hundreds of dialects but all the political elite spoke French for administrative and political purposes. The same goes for the Polish and the Lithuanians, the latter of which were Polonized, who saw themselves as part of a nation greater than the areas that spoke their language. This likewise existed in Britain and many other countries.

>>2598768
You are confusing nations with states.
The Westphalia system is a state system. Nations later devloped within some of these states, but the borders has still changed a lot since Westphailia.
The idea of nation was something that was developed up to and during the French Revolution.

>>2598804
and also this elite existed for many centuries before nationalism

>>2598446
>A stranger comming to a village would be percieved with extreme suspicion, regardless of what language he spoke.

Why? A stranger who is able to communicate with them would be put in a different category than a stranger who is not.

>>2598808

I'm not.

You're confusing a smooth scale of cultural differences across a country, with no solid lines dividing them culturally, with the modern discrete nations of monocultures.

You don't get modern capital 'N' Nations without a government forcing their chosen monoculture on everyone in their borders, and typically expelling anyone who doesn't want to go along.

>>2598815
Because back then you were born in a village and you were most likely to die in said village as well. Or farm. You had no incentive to ever leave. And if you did leave you, it was most likely because you was a criminal or a witch. Therefore strangers was seen with suspicion.
Also, if you never leave your village, then you wont see yourself as a part of a larger community as abstract as the 'nation'. Why would you, unless you have been taught to? And that first started happening in the 19th century.

>>2598342
>Do you really think a farmer in 18th century Denmark had a national identity or even understood the notion of nationhood?

Why not? Do you think an 18th century village was completely barred from knowledge of the outside world? Biblical texts alone would make them know that there are different peoples in the world.

>>2598824
That's what I'm saying. But first the idea of Nation has to be created, before you can enforce such ideas, which was done through education in public schools. Who decides the curriculum in public schools? The king or the government.

>>2598839

Un. True.

You would not be likely to end up marrying someone from more than twenty miles from your place of birth.

But people routinely traveled hundreds of miles. Not EVERYONE, but PLENTY. It was common for the family to work the farm, and then the eldest men go and sell the goods next season. The market town might be a hundred miles away, might be two miles away.

Your surrounding area had a lot of languages. You could tell where and when anyone was born from a short conversation. Further away, you could have spoken one of the famous trade or education languages, like Latin.

>>2598845
Yeah, implying they would be able to read biblical texts. You are overestimating the basic knowledge of a 18th century peasant.

>>2598846

It was created by stops and starts. Urban culture converged, and was then exported.

The only great example of a nation in Europe before Westphalia would be the Jewish community in Western (not Eastern) Europe, and the Catholic Church (in certain modes). Then the best example of a nationality preceding the state is in Germany.

>>2598854
Yeah, but you wouldn't settle in villages a 100 miles away. MOST ordinary people didn't travel many miles outside their birthplace.

>>2598864
Now you are confusing Nation with Ethnie.

>>2598839
>And if you did leave you, it was most likely because you was a criminal or a witch.

Or perhaps you sell your produce on the nearest market. Or you're a pilgrim. Or a merchant. Or a journeyman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_du_Tour_de_France ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman_years);

Meeting people who were not from your village was not that unusual, especially in the 18th century as mobility increased. Now if you live in an area close to a language border, it's likely that people differentiated between 'us' (those who we are able to understand and 'them' (foreigners). The Slavs called the former people of the word (slovo) and the latter, mostly Germans, mutes (nemci, now the word for German).

>>2598864
You can literally see how Herder, Fichte, Arndt and Jahn created the idea of a German Nation in the late 18th and 19th century.

>>2598902
Yeah differentiate between different ethnicities, not different nations.
And yes people who had errands traveled, but they didn't settle down in a strange village to find a job. If you did, you would be looked upon as a criminal.

>>2598871

How far? A hundred miles.

>>2598880

I'm really not. Ethnicity is the correct term for what you are calling nations pre-Westphalia.

>>2598903

One of the few nations to 'naturally' nationalize. Japan did too.

>>2598857
>Implying they didn't go to church

>>2598929
>implying the priest taught peasants nationhood
>implying the priest had a sense of nationhood

>>2598924
>nations pre-Westphalia
Is anachronistic. Ethnie and Nation isn't the same thing.

>>2598839
>Also, if you never leave your village, then you wont see yourself as a part of a larger community as abstract as the 'nation'.
Says who.

>>2598964
>[...]unless you are taught so.
Anthropologists.

>>2598857
They would hear them in church, you know.

>>2598946
Alright alright. But still, people knew where they and their loyality belonged to.

>>2598956

No, not NOW.

The term 'ethnicity' describes the same thing that the term 'nation' does, when talking about cultural groups in the pre-Westphalian world.

There are rare exceptions. Roman and Jewish are the best examples, island nations are bad examples, but you could say Irish, British, or Japanese as well. They were nations before they were states.

>>2598917

Ethnicity is the basis for most modern nation states. What's your point?

>>2598991
Yes, their families. Maybe village. You were forced into war. After nation building you went happily.

>nationalism didn't exist before the 19th century
What is the Iliad?

>>2599001
Not not now, nor never. ethnicity and nationality is two different things, and has always been. 'Nation' didn't exist before Westphalia.

>>2599004

How do you mean?

Italians all demanded that they be taught standard Italian one day?

>>2598903
>German Nation

That phrase is much older than that. It was already common in the 15th century.

>>2599014

That's what I said.

Norwegian upper class did not even use Norwegian language as their official language until the late 19th century. How do you think people from a shitty Norwegian village would they feel about this? They didn't fight for their country but for foreigner rulers.

>>2599020
So? Doesn't mean it existed. German nationalism was created during the Napoleonic Wars.

>>2599010
Fiction?
Also City States doesn't equal nations.

>>2598903
>In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ),[24][25] a form first used in a document in 1474.

>>2599017
nation = themes of modern nationalism now?

I see

>>2599041
I'm talking about the whole of Greece.

Fiction can't create a common identity? Do you know nothing of Greece?

National identity might have existed before the 19th century. What didn't exist before that was nation states.

>>2599052

What does nation mean?

It's an officially recognized culture of a state.

>>2599053
A common Greek identity? Hellenia? But they still waged war against each other internally all the time. Would you call that civil war then? No you wouldn't. They only teamed up to fight the fucking Persians, and after that the city states kept waging war again. Would you seriously catagorize Sparta and Athens under a common nation?

>>2599066
>its not civil war because I said so

>>2599066
The problem is that you're confusing "nation" and "state". Just because people are part of one nation doesn't mean that they can't form different states and fight each other. It happened many times in History.

>>2598977
When charles the bold impounded parts of southern germany in 1469 you know what happened? Habsburgian symbols of power in the new territory were replaced with brugundian ones. The villages got burgundian flags to make clear where they belonged to now.

The city of bern tried to manage the flow of information in it's territories starting in the 15th century. The cities office would gather news, edit them and send them to cities and villages in its territories through public announcers. That way the city could spread its own version of what's happening in the world.

Living in medieval europe doesn't mean you live in a vacuum. You may live in a tiny village where not much is happening but you certainly knew where that village belonged to if it there was a political power holding claim to it

>>2598215
language a nation does not make, kings a nations does not make, you can't have a true nation state before you create a sense of national community through certain lenses of looking at the past and a lot of propaganda.

>>2599031
You're right, but it wasn't created from scratch, that's why the idea of the nation was so sweeping.

>>2599063
No it isn't.
Here are some definitions for you:
Ernst Renan: the nation is based on a "daily plebiscite.

Benedicte Andersson: "an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign"

Anthony Smith: "a named population sharing a historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for its members"

And Anthony Smith on Ethnie: "named units of population with common ancestry myths and historical memories, elements of shared culture, some link with a historic territory and some measure of solidarity, at least among their elites"

>>2599082
I'm not confusing anything. They shared ethnicity, not nationhood.

>>2599090
But a political power isn't a nation.

>>2599102

They're describing ethnic groups. They're saying nations didn't exist in pre-modern times.

>at least among their elites"

And we can see the truth. Nationality is a culture imposed from above by a state.

>>2599031

yeah, if you re-define nations as "has to meet the criteria of modern nationalism".

Besides, even modern nationalism in Germany likely predates the Napoleonic Wars, Planert writes in Befreiungskrieg that it was already there in the 18th century.

>>2599113
>Nationality is a culture imposed from above by a state
Yes that's what I'm saying, and this first started happening in the 19th century.

>>2599128

You were disagreeing when I said it's a culture recognized by a state.

>>2599119
Yes, Herder wrote about the German Nation in the 18th century. And his ideas was used in the 19th century to define and distribute the idea of Nation.

>>2599109
They shared nationhood, the popularity of the Iliad is a testament to that. The creation of the Iliad is a testament to that.

They were just a part of their state first, then nation. Before states became important, it was tribe, brotherhood, and so on.

>>2599140
I don't agree that the authority who imposes the idea of nation necessarily has to be the state.
But historically this has often been the case.

>>2599109
>But a political power isn't a nation.
That's true and it's not the point I'm arguing form. I'm saying that the people from villages and cities knew they bolonged to a bigger political entity. They also knew they belonged to a bigger cultural entity. The mental and physical borders were drawn in a different way and didn't look like today. But the people weren't as isolated as the other guy made it look

>>2599157
Just because they had elements of shared culture, doesn't mean they were a nation.
Culturally Spartans and Athenians were very different.

>>2599172
So? They still both identified as Greek.

>>2599163

Any body that imposes things like that is the state by definition.

Nations may form as cultures naturally converge. But this is not the normal way nations form. It happened a few famous times; Rome, Jewish people in Europe, Germany, Japan; and the rest of the time it was imposed from the top, in France and Thailand it was massively successful, in Italy and Spain it went okay, in Yugoslavia it didn't work at all, and it's impossible to say yet about the nations Europeans invented in the Middle East.

>>2599178
So? I also identify as European, doesn't mean I'm part of a European nation.

File: 1490370656668.png (211KB, 286x272px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 286x272px

>>2599010

hol up
so you iz sayin that the illiad makes greeks a nation?
ay yo
yo hol up
so the iliad makes greeks a nation, and the aneied claims romans wuz greeks
iz you sayin
WE
WUZ
GREEKS?

>>2599186
Europe is a continent, not a nation.

Greece had a concept of Europe vs. Asia, they just didn't like the rest of Europe much. Still European.

>>2599157
>different city states in close proximity shared similar cultural traits, specifically they heard the same oral tradition
>this means they're the same nation
>apparently France and Italy are the same because they were both Catholic and both read the same bible.

do you realize how retarded you are? a nation is a liberal idea, a sovereign of the people, by and for them. They follow the same government, learn the same things in school, salute the same flag, and they all heavily distinguish between members of their nation and members of others. None of this can be said of ancient greece, they were utterly independent of each other.

I think you're mistaking a kingdom for a nation. Athens is the closest you get before the French Revolution and that's just one city.

>>2599182
>Any body that imposes things like that is the state by definition.

I don't agree, and I have never come across such a definition before.

>>2599205

The state is the thing that uses violence to solve problems.

You can't force children to attend school without using force.

>>2599202
>a nation is a liberal idea
No it's not.
>apparently France and Italy are the same because they were both Catholic and both read the same bible.
No, it makes them both Catholic.
The Iliad brought together the oral traditions of many 'cities'. It's unifying.

>>2599210

That's an exceptionally simplistic definition of "the state".

>>2599211

How do you keep pimping the Iliad yet rejecting the Bible did the same thing for Christendom?

Christians from France to Italy to Hungary got together in church and listened to the same stories advocating the same morals.

If the Greeks are a nation, so is Christendom.

>>2599220
The Bible wasn't written for Europe or its tribes, the Iliad was written for Greece and its tribes.

Christendom is too global to be a nation.

>>2599216

It's the basic definition of it. You can't add anything to it that all states have, you can't lose anything from that some states don't.

States are the things that use violence to solve disputes.

>>2599229

They're both IDENTITIES. They're all IDENTITIES.

Nation is a specific kind of identity developed and used in the last few hundred years to develop the power of the state.

>>2599235
So militaries are states, and terrorists and militias etc. Or any entity that uses violence to solve anything.

Your definition is retarded.

>>2599243
>arbitrary division between a national identity and nationalism

>>2599244

They are part of the state. If there are no other institutions, they are the state.

You seem to understand this fine.

>>2599248

So you believe national identity and nationalism mean the same thing?

>>2599248

He didn't say national identity, he said identity.

It's completely arbitrary to go "The greeks were a nation because they had a common book of fables that they all adhered to to structure their oral tradition, which influenced their ethics!" and then go "but the bible doesn't count despite performing an identical function"

>>2599253
Irregular troops who perform guerrilla warfare isn't neither part of a state or is the state, no.

>>2599248
Nationalism is an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity on behalf of a population deemed by some of its members to constitute an actual or potential 'nation'.

>>2599259
An identity of a nation is national identity.
>It's completely arbitrary to go...
Wrong, you don't understand either text or the associated cultures.
>>2599273
No, that's just a new name for it.

>>2599273
btw by that reasoning, the Greeks were nationalist during the Persian Wars.

Oh wait, that goes against your agenda.

>>2599270

Are they settling disputes between third-parties? Or are they resisting the legacy state?

>>2599278
>Wrong, you don't understand either text or the associated cultures.

Going "you just don't get it" absent any explanation isn't an argument.

>>2599283
The Ancient Greeks didn't perceive themselves to be a common nation, they shared some culture, and teamed up a few time to face a common enemy. Not like the Spartans could even be bothered to help Athens, they were happy to see it burn.

>>2599308
>How Greco-Persian wars began

File: 1482877256896.png (555KB, 678x884px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 678x884px

>the absolute retard ITT trying to argue that ancient Greece was a nation

hey guys check it out: another example of a "nation" by that retard's standards

>>2599325
nah you're going too big, too global there m8.

>>2599325
>Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation
You just BTFO'd yourself x---DDDDD

>>2599339
>What is linguistics.

>>2599349
>Applying abstract concepts on abstract concepts is bad when it proves me wrong

>>2599325
That's a state that contains multiple nations

>>2599358
nah you're just using semantics to avoid the fact that you're a retard that thought ancient greece(and perhaps even the HRE) was a "nation."

>>2599362
wow so you're actually just retarded that's good to know.

>>2599362

Which nations?

Are the Dutch German? Bavarians?

>>2599366
I'm not the same anon, and if people of Holy Roman Empire (who are at the same time ruled by King of Romans, King of Germans and Holy Roman Emperor in one person at the same time) live in a fucking country that declares itself a "nation" it IS a nation

>>2599362
the individual kingdoms in that pic (that you're referring to as "nations") are not independent and therefore cannot be nations. Furthermore the whole entity, what you call a "state" is not unified enough to be considered a state. So you're wrong either way you look at it.

>>2599377
but that's wrong and you're just as retarded as he is for thinking that

>>2599377
It isn't a fucking nation it's a state. Unless the fucking people living within its borders feel as a common nation, it isn't a NATION STATE.
Like fucking Romans and people from Schleswig would identify under the same nation. Jesus christ, retard.

>>2599366
>Arguing with acients whether they should considered themselves a nation because my I think they should do it ONLY AFTER 18th century
x---DDDDD

>>2599308
>The Ancient Greeks didn't perceive themselves to be a common nation
They did.

Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves. There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay — and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it. As for our foreign troops — Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes — they are the best and stoutest soldiers in Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia. And what, finally, of the two men in supreme command? You have Alexander, they — Darius!
Addressing his troops prior to the Battle of Issus, as quoted in Anabasis Alexandri by Arrian Book II, 7.


Youths of the Pellaians and of the Macedonians and of the Hellenic Amphictiony and of the Lakedaimonians and of the Corinthians… and of all the Hellenic peoples, join your fellow-soldiers and entrust yourselves to me, so that we can move against the barbarians and liberate ourselves from the Persian bondage, for as Greeks we should not be slaves to barbarians.
As quoted in the Historia Alexandri Magni of Pseudo-Kallisthenes, 1.15.1-4.

>>2599404
>People surely considered themselves a nation before the idea of nation existed.
Yes.

>>2599404
because "nationstate" is a modern term that was specifically designed to encompass new nations AS DISTINCT from the old orders. They literally came up with the idea of a nation-state as a basic fundamental difference between them and what came before.

So yes, considering the word was designed to divide these things, it isn't a stretch to assume that it was specifically constructed as a way of distinguishing themselves from the past. If you've got a problem with how the dictionary works, I'm not the guy to take it up with.

>>2599411
Are you now confusing alliances with nations? You are getting even more retarded by the minute.

>>2599414
What's "Deutsches Nation" then? "German something-that-has-no-meaning-yet"?

>>2599411

guess how i can tell you havent read a single history book on ancient greeks

>>2599429
The word Nation existed. But the way we use it today, and in this thread, it didn't. This idea was invented during the enlightenment.

>>2599423
No, I'm not. Alexander clearly grouped "Greeks" as one group/nation, and opposed them to "barbarians", which was everyone else. He recognized differences between all the different Greek city-states, but he still grouped them together as one people.

Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas [Greece] and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you.
Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius III of Persia in response to a truce plea, as quoted in Anabasis Alexandri by Arrian; translated as Anabasis of Alexander by P. A. Brunt, for the "Loeb Edition" Book II 14, 4.

>>2599411
Did the Greek city states follow the same government, a singular entity that controlled all of Greece and was paid taxes by every greek? We're they raised to believe that men from Athens and men from Sparta were the same people under the same government with the same cultural values? Did they have a national school system that every child was forced to attend? Did they have a nation all army loyal to a central administration and not to any one city? Did they form their nation on the basis of sovereignty of the people and the natural rights of man as outlined by John Locke? Did they form a national constitution that all men in all parts of Greece adhered to? Did they have a unified legal system, a state of "laws, not men?"

No to all of these? Then it was never a nation state you bumbling baffoon.

>>2599442
What did it mean before? Isn't that just semantics? :^)

>>2599443
a "group" doesn't equal a nation.
You clearly don't know what a nation is.

>>2599451
Nobody said it was a nation-state. Nations and nation-states are different. I wish people would start understanding the words they employ before they start debating.
>>2599456
>a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
All of this except for "country" applies to ancient Greeks. They did have regional differences between their cities, but they weren't different enough to be a nation. All cities, even to this day, have their own specific cultures.

>>2599452
If you're really too retarded to know that words change meaning all the time, like fag and gay, then there really is no help for you.
Nation (from Latin: natio, "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock"). If you really think that is how we use it in this thread, then you are retarded.

>>2599462
>all of this except for "country"

and "aggregate of people." and "united." and "common descent." and "culture." and "particular territory," considering there were "greek" citystates all over the Mediterranean that had virtually no connection to the mainland other than trade.

File: dog (1).jpg (29KB, 720x496px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 720x496px

>>2599443

>No, I'm not. Alexander clearly grouped "Greeks" as one group/nation, and opposed them to "barbarians", which was everyone else

So are barbarians part of the barbarian nation?

>>2599480
well to be fair they were united as a proto nationstate during the great Hyper War so I can understand his confusion

>>2599474
They had all of that. Look up their origins.

>The ethnogenesis of the Greek nation is linked to the development of Pan-Hellenism in the 8th century BC.[68] According to some scholars, the foundational event was the Olympic Games in 776 BC, when the idea of a common Hellenism among the Greek tribes was first translated into a shared cultural experience and Hellenism was primarily a matter of common culture.[43] The works of Homer (i.e. Iliad and Odyssey) and Hesiod (i.e. Theogony) were written in the 8th century BC, becoming the basis of the national religion, ethos, history and mythology.[69] The Oracle of Apollo at Delphi was established in this period.[70]
>>2599480
No, it was just a word for anybody who wasn't Greek, much like "gaijin" means anybody who isn't Japanese.

>>2599493
>shared culture=nationstate

so apparently all of Europe was a nationstate because they were all Christian.

great argument that has already been proven wrong in this thread. By on means, keep repeating your stupidity just so everyone can get a clear idea of how utterly unreasonable you are, and hopefully this thread will die.

>>2599493
>becoming the basis of the national religion, ethos, history and mythology.
>national
Disgusting. Whoever edited that Wikipedia-article is a anachronistic idiot, and shouldn't be allowed to ever write anything again.

>>2599504
You're the one who keeps repeating stupidities. Nobody talked about nation-states except for you. Nation-state and nation are different concepts.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

na·tion-state
noun
a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

Nation-states are relatively recent. Nations are ancient.
>>2599508
No, it's the truth.

>>2599493
gaikokujin/gaijin is the exact equivalent of the english word foreigner. it doesn't mean "anyone who isn't japanese".

>>2599519
Who's a foreigner in Japan? Anybody who isn't Japanese.

>>2599515
I've literally already broken down why neither the definition of nation nor nationstate fits greece, in fact I went through literally every word and explained why it wasn't a nation by either definition.

keep desperately shitposting

>>2599515
A nation state is simply a state which is controled by a nation.

>Nations are ancient.
Just not true, m8. A Nation doesn't see other members of said nation dead in geo-political power games. A nation don't wage internal war, if so, it is a failed nation.

Your supposed Greek nation didn't have common legal rights for its members. The idea of nation is inherently liberal. Equality among men within the nation is a basic nationalistic understanding. Spartans didn't see Athenians as their equal nor as their countrymen. They saw them as enemies.

>>2599543
we've already explained this to him several times and he just keeps posting the same nonsense. Guy's hopeless.

>>2599543
By your definition, then Germans have only started being a nation in 1990, or at the very earliest in 1871. Before that, they were in different states as well and were fighting each other.

>>2599560
you do realize that germany only recently united, and for thousands of years it was a series of competing groups that in no way considered themselves a "nation?"

the German "nation" did not exist until the 19th century, this is true. It also lines up perfectly with the fact that only entities after the revolutionary era are considered nations

>>2599560
>or at the very earliest in 1871
Almost correct, the period from the Napoleonic War up to the unification is normally considered the birth of German nationalism and nation-building.

>>2599543
>A nation don't wage internal war, if so, it is a failed nation.

That doesn't follow. A nation cannot fail. It is either a set of cultural standards or it isn't. There is no anti-nation or fail-nation.

>>2599587
A nation can seize to exist, and thus it has failed. The nation only exist, like any other social construct, as long as people believe in it. If they stop to believe, then it is a failed nation.

>>2599543
>Spartans didn't see Athenians as their equal nor as their countrymen. They saw them as enemies.

It is possible to see them as "Greeks" and as enemies at the same time. Was there the concept of Greek vis rest of the world at the time regardless of internal Greek divsions?

>>2599587
> a nation cannot fail

if you've backed yourself into a corner like that you should have realized by now that you're wrong and none of your statements hold up to even the most basic peer review. To logical people, this is a sign that they are wrong. To trolls, this is a sign that their attempts are not working. To you, this should be a sign that you've gone so far up your own ass with confirmation bias that you're now saying ridiculous shit like this just to back up your ridiculous narrative.

>>2599572
>>2599576
That's not true. They recognized themselves as Germans since at least the middle-age. They were fighting each other because their feudal lords wanted more personal power, not because they considered themselves different.

>The title of rex teutonicum "King of the Germans" is first used in the late 11th century, by the chancery of Pope Gregory VII, to describe the future Holy Roman Emperor of the German nation Henry IV.[74] Natively, the term diutscher (German) was used for the people of Germany beginning in the 12th century.

>>2599597
Just because you can group them as Greeks, doesn't mean it's a Greek nation. You can also group Danes, Swedes and Norwegians as Scandinavians.

>>2599601
just because you can group an ethnically similar people together by very loose cultural ties does not mean they are a nation.

For the billionth time in this thread.

>>2599614
That's true, but in the case of the Germans and Greeks, you absolutely can.

>>2599601
German as an ethnic group isn't the same as German as a nation.

>>2599602
All that means is there is also Scandinavian nation. But it's not a nation-state.

Nation: a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Nation does not necessitate same country, or even liking each other.

>>2599620
There isn't a Scandinavian nation you absolute fucking retard. Either you are trolling hard, or you are a legit retard, and if so, I feel sorry for you.

>>2599631
Why not? It fits the definition.

>>2599618
but you absolutely cant and we've successfully argued this over and over again already. Just because you ignore our posts doesn't mean your position hasn't been utterly dismantled.

>>2599632
it doesn't fit that definition in any way. You're delusional

>>2599600

The state of failure you describe does not indicate a nation has failed, it has not lost the things that make it a nation.

Though I see you've decided to concede. The argument is no longer interesting to you, making yourself feel better online is.

>>2599636
Yes it does though. You seem to have a very narrow understanding of what words mean.

The fact the very concept of Scandinavia exists is proof.

>>2599634
>but you absolutely cant and we've successfully argued this over and over again already.
No, we haven't. You used the definition of "nation-state" to deny the existence of ancient nations.

By the way, I'm not >>2599620 I don't believe that Scandinavians are a nation, though they used to be one before the late middle-age.

>>2599619

Could you show us a map of the German nation in 1500 AD?

>>2599620
lmao, what is this? some next level nation-ception. nations within nations within nations within nations.

>>2599632
there's a difference between coming together as a nation and deliberating a national identity, and people who happen to be similar because they love in the same area. They come from opposite sides of the spectrum: one is top down, the other formed naturally because people in similar environments develop similar cultures, this is geography not nation building.

Keep desperately clinging to semantics and reiterating your already-disproven arguments.

>>2599657
Doesn't exist, so no.

>>2599671

Then the earliest map that would show it. I'll search for some too.

>>2599649
I specifically broke down the definition of "nation," not "nationstate" and showed that it was NEITHER.

>>2599661
Nations within nations is also possible following the definition.

>>2599665
The definition does not necessitate it being formal, or intentional, or top down, or cooperative. It necessitates linguistical, cultural, genetic, historical or territorial similarity.

>>2599675
>"Nationalism among the Germans first developed not among the general populace but among the intellectual elites of various German states. The early German nationalist Friedrich Karl von Moser, writing in the mid 18th century, remarked that, compared with "the British, Swiss, Dutch and Swedes", the Germans lacked a "national way of thinking".[7] However, the cultural elites themselves faced difficulties in defining the German nation, often resorting to broad and vague concepts: the Germans as a "Sprachnation" (a people unified by the same language), a "Kulturnation" (a people unified by the same culture) or an "Erinnerungsgemeinschaft" (a community of remembrance, i.e. sharing a common history).[7] Johann Gottlieb Fichte – considered the founding father of German nationalism[8] – devoted the 4th of his Addresses to the German Nation (1808) to defining the German nation and did so in a very broad manner. In his view, there existed a dichotomy between the people of Germanic descent. There were those who had left their fatherland (which Fichte considered to be Germany) during the time of the Migration Period and had become either assimilated or heavily influenced by Roman language, culture and customs, and those who stayed in their native lands and continued to hold on to their own culture.[9]

Later German nationalists were able to define their nation more precisely, especially following the rise of Prussia and formation of the German Empire in 1871 which gave the majority of the German-speakers in Europe a common political, economic and educational framework."

>>2599685

What year was German standardized?

>>2599680
if a "nation" is subject to another, larger "nation" then it isn't a nation. it's has no sovereignty and therefore cannot fit the definition of a nation.

YOU ARE WRONG
O
U

A
R
E

W
R
O
N
G

>>2599699

Nation does not necessitate sovereignty you tard. That would be a nation-state, a political construction.

>>2599702
It's astounding how he can't understand the difference between both.

>>2599699

Why is sovereignty part of a nations definition?

There are virtually no nations TODAY, then.

>>2599702
No. A nation subjected to another nation will try to detach itself from the larger entity. This is was Gellner calls the nationalistic principle. That the nations primary goal is to form a nation-state.

>>2599717

In the Westphalian world this is true.

>>2599717
Cool, but that still does not necessitate a nation being sovereign. In fact, it shows the opposite, as for some non-zero amount of time it would have to fight for it's independence, while having a concept of itself as a nation.

>>2599714
>implying the modern organizations like nato/eu/UN are some sort of authority and not just a bartering table

guess what guys turns out Russia and the US are the same nation because they're both in the UN

thanks for clearing that up

>>2599714
They are "sovereign" since no dynastic monarchy or another nation can claim authority over them, retard.

>>2599731

I mean, of the distinct cultures that exist today, under 200 are sovereign, and that's a high estimate.

>>2599732

Then you are saying that states and nations are identical?

>>2599729
>that still does not necessitate a nation being sovereign

sovereignty is intrinsic to nationhood.

This is seriously the most convoluted example of a confirmation bias I've seen in a while, and this is the same board that is infested with religious people.

>>2599738
No I'm saying that Nations only see themselves as legitimate ruler of said Nation. Nations wants to be free from foreign rule. They achieve this freemdom by creation of a sovereign state. A nation state.

>>2599751

Show me where in the definition sovereignty is intrinsic.

>>2599757
By your definition, Quebec, my nation, isn't actually a nation. That's pretty offensive.

>>2599767
It is. That's why Quebec bitches about autonomy all the time. Like the Scottish, or the Irish. So you have been granted considerble autonomy to shut the fuck up and abide by the queen.

>>2599757

So the definition of nation is not a shared culture, but a shared ruler?

You are saying that nations are states.

>>2599777
That's not a definition on nation no. But it is the goal of nationalism.

>>2599771
But we're not sovereign, and we rejected sovereignty in 1995 through a referendum. By your definition, we can't be a nation, otherwise we would have all voted to leave. Or is it that people who voted yes are true Quebecois, and the rest are all fakes?

>>2599771
But it still isn't actually sovereign, which is why they bitch.

>>2599767
it's not.

it's no more a nation than California is. Canada is your nation. If anything this proves that cultural ties are not major factors in nationhood, and that the legal/political side of things is what makes something a nation. The whole reason nations are so much better than old systems is because they can unite people of various cultures under a single flag and purpose to the point where culture is secondary to national allegience. The United States is the most obvious example of this.

>>2599792
People in California generally consider themselves American. Most people in Quebec consider themselves Quebecois, not Canadian. Canada is our country, but Quebec is our nation. We consider ourselves that before we're closer to each other by blood, language, history, and culture, than to the rest of Canada. This is what a nation is.

>>2599787
I hope you know that civic nationalism and cultural/ethnic nationalism exist. Maybe Quebecians just see themselves as Canadians and embrace civic nationalism. Pretty much like the US.

File: 1490662107010.jpg (572KB, 2048x1534px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 2048x1534px

>>2599792
>this whole post

The official position of the Government of Canada is that Canada is a state of many nations. Also lol at thinking we are united in a shared identity called Canada. Trust me, we are not. And I wish my French brothers the best of luck in throwing off this oppressive globalist government.

>>2599810
So, don't you enjoy considerble autonomy within Canada? And the exact reason is that you see yourself as a nation and sovereign, so you have fought for said autonomy.

>>2599810
it's not what a nation is. You can't just claim to be a nation because it agrees with your fee fees. You're not a nation, Canada is your nation. You're a territory within a nation, that's it. You and Ireland can bitch all you want but until you set up an independent government you've both just parts of a greater national whole. A culture created by nationalism is different than a state that was formed by culture. One is intrinsically top down, the other is intrinsically bottom up. One allows you to easily conscript millions of people under one flag and the other got blown the fuck out until they copied that national system.

>>2599851
All provinces have some autonomy, but it is not considerable. JT Sr. derided Joe Clark for wanting that to be the case though. In any case, they are still not sovereign.

>>2599865
You might just be a weak nation, with a weak sense of national identity then. If your national bond was strong enough, you would have voted yes for secession.

>>2599887

There was money in the ethnic vote. Round 2 is coming up though.

>>2599906
Money *and ethnic votes rather.

>>2599913
>>2599906
So what, are you trying to discredit your initial point now?

>>2599920

No, it was cheeky comment, but you don't know enough about Canadian history to get it so whatever. There are subtleties here that would just take too long to get into.

Point is nation and sovereignty are not synonymous. Indeed, how would anything secede, as it would lack the sense of nationhood to first initiate secession?

>>2599935
Sure, but the definition of nation is that all or a majority of the people within the given territory are united by common culture etc and they see themselves as part of such a nation. Not just a select few among different 'elites'.

>>2599958
You got the wrong way around. The Elites didn't want it, and bused people in to make sure it didn't happen.

>>2598215

Because they are deluded leftists that think France and Napoleon were the greatest things ever

>>2599978
The royalty didn't want it, other elites did. With nationalism, elites was able to topple the different kingdoms.

>>2599990

The royalty didn't care. It was business that cared, and Southern Ontarian power-seekers.

Support was, and is grass roots, which is why Canada is having a devil of a time getting rid of it.

>>2599935
saying this a million times doesn't make it true

>hur hur dur 2subtle4u

if you're implying the same forces of unity that brought people of similar cultures together in ancient times are the same forces that built the revolutionary nations of the 19th century, you'd be implying something that is retarded. They ancient really fundamentally different concepts that create fundamentally different styles of government. Superior even, so much so that everyone else had to get on board or be destroyed by weakness. What you're basically arguing is that the French Revolution wasn't relevant enough to create these distinctions, and this is the argument of someone who knows nothing of history. All you've done is reiterate the same retarded shit as you did at the beginning and your idea of winning is to keep stating your obviously flawed position with no supporting evidence over and over again until nobody is left to respond.

>>2600002
The royalty didn't care? Ever heard of the Holy Alliance? The entire fucking point was to suppress national revolutions.

>>2600008
*they are really fundamentally...

>>2600010

I mean in the Quebec referendum.

>>2600008


I'm not saying any of that. You're reading things into definitions that are not there. And conflating formal and informal groupings.

Point to where the word sovereign shows up in the definition of nation. I'll wait.

>>2600034
>Point to where the word sovereign shows up in the definition of nation. I'll wait.

>>2599102
>"an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign"

>>2600043
Benedicte Andersson didn't invent the concept of nationalism. He doesn't get to define it.

>>2600043
>Nation: a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Not seeing it desu. I reject your definition as inherently limited and naive in scope.

>>2600056
But he's still one of the most influencial voices on nationalism, in the 21st century. You're not.

>>2600061

Still doesn't get to prescribe his particular, and narrow definition to millions of people.

>>2600073
But you do?

>>2600061
He's a rootless cosmopolitan and a marxist and just wants to erase nations. He has a huge bias and no credibility at all.

And if you want some appeal to authority to counter yours, then there's also plenty of influential people, many more than him, who disagree with him.

>>2600082
No, but now you know when I say nation what I mean. If you wish to reject it end the conversation, and walk away you can. There can be no private language so to speak.

>>2600084
Most people who study nation and nationalism sees them as modern construction born out of the enlightenment and the french revolution.
There exists almost no primordialists nowadays within nation studies. This is because you guys have a really shitty case and worse arguments which amounts to muh nation muh legitmacy.

File: Capture.png (53KB, 814x508px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 814x508px

>>2600034
since you've decided to take the literal google simplification on the front page as a scholarly definition in a fucking scholarly argument, i figured I would actually bring up a scholarly definition of the term so that we could discuss how retarded you are-well, as much as that is possible considering how far we've already gone in that regard-so that we can put an end to this ridiculous discussion.


What this definition lays out quite simply, is that there are THREE separate definitions of a nation, and there are THREE definitions in order to distinguish THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF GOVERNMENT. The primary definition, as used in the modern sense of the term, is either a politically organized nationality, a community of people with defined territory and government, and the third being charactarized as "relatively large size and independent status."

Funnily enough, the example for the second type of definition(remember, there are 3 definitions, but the 1st definition has 3 separate types) is this:

"Canada is a nation with a written constitution"

When you discuss Quebec, you discuss a modern situation with modern terms. The definition you're using is literally labeled "archaic."

By the very example used in the actual merriam-webster dictionary, quebec is not a nation, because it does not exist in an ancient context where the archaic sense of the word should be used.

In any case, the dictionary makes CLEAR distinctions between the modern nation(in all 3 of it's types, NONE OF WHICH categorize ancient greece or quebec)

So basically, you're retarded. And wrong. In every conceivable way. But you'll still probably just reiterate your retarded position over and over again until nobody is left to respond, then you've "won" I guess.

>>2600107
>"Canada is a nation with a written constitution"

This is patently untrue. See Trudeau Juniors recent comments

>When you discuss Quebec, you discuss a modern situation with modern terms. The definition you're using is literally labeled "archaic.".

Your definitions have been selected to be imperialistic and colonial. The archaic one is the only sensible one. Indeed, it is probably the most important sense of the word as it allows the language necessary to critically analyses your power discourse.

You can keep giving me Globalist definitions and I'll keep rejecting them as fundamentally silencing marginalized groups.

>>2600150
ah I see, so you're not a historian, or a political scientist, you're just some fucking guy with politically-fueled hate boners and you arbitrarily apply your morality and modern conceptions to historical figures like some fucking grade-level caricature of how NOT to view history.

You pick and chose facts, cut apart definitions with a razor and put it all back together until your jumbled mess of logic and reason comes together in a terrible ball of confirmation bias hell. You label scholarly sources as "globalist" and refute the entire academic discourse throughout various disciplines as all being unreliable and subject to some sort of global conspiracy, all while assuring us that your politically-motivated and personally-invested opinions about a matter of historical and political significance are to be better trusted because they suit your modern ends.

Well sir, to all that I say good day to you. Good day to you and and that absolutely insane head of yours. You've been utterly dismantled, I've torned apart everything you've posted for literally hours, it's pretty much all been me and at this point I realize that there is nothing I could say to make you admit this and so there's no point anymore. You've been utterly shut down in every conceivable facet of imagination and I think anyone reading this can see that clearly. In the end, that's enough for me.

>>2600172

You dismantled nothing. You've just been unsuccessful in co-opting language to suit your goal of controlling thought, and with it power. Take your bullshit back to Davos while you figure out how to wrest more control from the masses and deny they exist at the same time.

File: 1488259554026.jpg (106KB, 560x510px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 560x510px

>>2600207
apparently now I'm also a part of this global conspiracy. Please, point me to the historical sources that aren't corrupted by this overarching evil so that I may be enlightened by your superior intellect.

Oh what's that, you don't actually have sources? You're just pulling semantics bullshit out of your ass based on the front page Google definition of a word and then shifting goalposts and saying that the entire academic world is unreliable once you realize that your argument is built on sand? You remind me of Christians that deny that rationality and logic even exist whenever their arguments are torn apart, not realizing that they make their own arguments with those same faculties.

Go on, respond. If you post last you win.

>>2600229
>the entire academic world is unreliable
Not him, but your globalist definition of "nation" certainly doesn't have the entire academic world behind it.

>>2600229
Unreliable, oh no there are reliable and consistent within themselves. But what you accuse me of doing, selecting definitions to fit my goals, is in fact what you are doing. By instituting the necessity of sovereignty you mute the ability for marginalized peoples to speak and articulate their desires, all because they have been marginalized. We can say "Cultural suppression of Quebecois? Not really a problem, as they are not a nation anyway, so they are free to be abused by the "real" nation of Canada."

>>2600235
>if I label things as globalist they're not to be taken seriously

please outline what definitions are unaffected by bias. Please, find me this unbiased guy you get all your information from, I'd like to meet him. He must exist in some existential alternate dimension where things are objective and ideas are independent of the context they exist in. Why discuss anything, we're all just brainwashed globalists. Good thing you've found the way out of this ideological puzzle that so many philosophers have tackled for thousands of years. You're the man to break free of bias, the man that has finally found the position that cannot be tainted by the evils of man.

I was so lost before, now your vague desperate shit posts at the end of a failed argument have shown me the way.

>>2600243
you're so obviously bias and emotionally fueled in this particular discussion because it affects you, and yet you try to hold a straight face and say that EVERYONE ELSE is bias but not you.

>>2600243
>still no sources

literally go read the OP of this board

>>2600252
And you're not? The point is not to rid ourselves of bias, but to account for it. Like you just said, all definitions are affected by bias, but what you won't do is recognize the consequences your own systems. You cling to a narrow definition because it suits your goals of denying some people even exist.

>>2600243
if Quebec wanted to be independent it would have voted for that but it didnt. Don't blame the definition of a word for your own people's failure to mobilize and seek independence. Your kind is all the same, angry reactionary conservatives clinging to some jumbled and incoherent definition of nationality to justify your PERSONAL wishes that do not line up with reality, all while you're offered independence and actively voting against it. We've got your type in america, they're called southerners. Ask them what happened when they tried to create their own nation. If you don't have the strength you don't get to be one. The modern state must be strong, if it's not strong enough to be a state then it isn't a state. You can't change the definition of state because it doesn't fit with your personal fee fees, but I feel like I've said that already and it's just not getting through that thick skull of yours.

>>2600243
Fuck off frog, nobody is suppressing the so called Quebecois, they just fail because they are a small and fractious group of people whose only common identity is "not English" . Not even regular french Quebecers like you idiots.

>>2600275

I'm not a Quebecker, and this extends beyond Quebec. It's the addition of sovereignty that is the jumbled and incoherent version. A mutilation of the original meaning of the word I might add. And convenient for imperial purposes.

>>2600290
the original way wasn't strong enough to survive and was actively outcompeted and integrated into the dominant system. There's no sense clinging to ancient ideas of nationhood that no longer have the strength to exist when put up against superior systems. You cling to delusions, that is all. You've lost just stop posting and walk away, it's all anonymous nobody will know how retarded you've been for the past few hours.

>>2600290
oh and furthermore, the fact that these movements continue to fail show this weakness.

>>2600301
It wasn't a "way" it was a tool to describe a state of relations. Until people like you decided to de-legitimize the very concept of having a such relation, then accuse others of using definitions to fit an agenda, like some Goebbelsesque big lie.

>>2600324
"people like me" did not decide anything. Nature ran it's course, strength toppled weakness, the old way fell out of use and into the dust bin of history. There is nothing more to say on the subject other than your desperate clinging to fundamentally weak movements destined to fail.

>>2600328

Nah, I don't think it is destined to fail, which is why you're fighting it right now. The strength of your system isn't in its arms, it's in its ability to humiliate, degrade, and deny. Which is why it's so important for you to maintain control of that word.

>>2600336
stop associating me with the big evil global conspiracy, "I" was born in 1993 and had nothing to do with any of this. You sound flustered, crazy even. You're just as big a part of it as I am. We're both just guys. Well, I'm a guy with a degree specifically tailored to discussing things like this, and you're just some guy, but other than that we'really the same. Well, besides you being wrong and me being right. That's definitely different.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, you've got no sources, you're just talking out of your ass. That's all you've been doing this entire time.

>>2600352

It's not a conspiracy, it's an attitude you hold towards the world.

And all you have to support your position is an appeal to authority, from only one person in the field. And disagreement with this one man has brought use here. Ask yourself why this one man's definition is so important to you, if not for political reasons.

nice balance fallacy(I've affectionately dubbed it the "fox news fallacy") I'll give you time to Google that since Google seems to be your go-to.

One man that respresents the collective consensus, a consensus that is so strong and effective that a)I've easily won this argument and b)my argument has easily suppressed weaker arguments countless times across the planet, and it's very merit is the reason it is so effective and has spread so far. Maybe the reason the big bad globalists are so effective as "suppressing" your beliefs because your beliefs don't hold up to reason and so they naturally fall apart. You can do what fox news does, take two people, put them in front of a screen and let them argue and give the false impression that both sides have merits when in reality one man represents a consensus of billions and the other represents a loud minority.

>>2600418

The argument is only contingent on either accepting or rejecting a definition. It isn't "naturally" falling apart. And you can give me no reason to accept your definition other than one man in your field said it should be that one. Why his definition and not someone else's? Debate the merits of your definition. I've tried to give you mine.

You can keep saying you've won but you're not even engaging anymore.

>>2600436
Im not going to debate with you some sort of existential philosophical discussion of whether or not the dictionary should be trusted to represent words, like what the fuck are you even trying to say? This is some wildly fucking convoluted dragging of feet.

It's not "my" definition it's the definition in the dictionary. It's your special fee fees definition you made up vs the consensus of english speakers.

You really are insane, or just desperate to have the last post so it looks like you won. Trust me buddy, anyone that reads this mess is going to see you for the retard that you are, you're not fooling anyone.

>>2600446
My definition is the first hit on Goggle. Some how that isn't representative of the consensus of English speakers? And are you unaware your definition originated with Benedict Anderson in the 80s?

>>2600460
you don't even know where your definition originated, or whether or not it represents a consensus. Its just some guy that works at Google and was told to simplify things for simple Google searches for simple people like you. It is not meant to be the basis for scholarly discussion. However since you've denied the authority of all scholarly figures and provided none of your own as a substitute, you're left in ideological limbo where nothing can be defined or proved, all to get away from the fact that neither the Google definition nor the actual definition fit the descriptions of ancient greece, quebec, and any other example you've brought up. yet another point I proved that negates the need for this conversation of pointless semantics bs. You've dismissed the very grounds required for discussion by claiming that each and every word is subject to the whims of the speaker's beliefs, such to the degree that communicating is impossible. classic meta shitposting at the end of a failed argument.

>>2600490
Mine comes from the OED God damn it. It holds the same authority as dictionary.com or wherever you pulled yours originally. And you're the one who is refusing to discuss the merits or your definition other than "some academics use this". And yes, communicating is impossible until we agree on a definition, but you wont discuss them on their merits.

>>2600511
I've already dissected the simplified Google definition in a previous post. I have further shown that the better definition also supports my claims. I'm left with you and your semantics, and that's about it. There is no sense in discussing the merits of each definition when they all prove my claims. You literally couldn't find one that refutes me because I looked at them all and I've already had the discussion worth having. What you propose isn't something you are actually willing or qualified to do, the entire idea is a distraction from your lack of anything meaningful to contribute. You started this conversation making meaningless semantic claims that held no merit. You have continued to do nothing but the same until now.

>>2600537
You have done no such thing. And it is patently false all definitions prove your claims given they result in contrary constructions. In fact the original disagreement is predicted on the differences between the definitions. You have been, and still are unable to give a reason for tasking your definition over mine on the basis of the definition itself. And I am not unqualified to discuss the merits of definitions, my BA is in math. My entire discipline is about definitions and their effects. Instead you deflect and mock.

>>2600418
>Maybe the reason the big bad globalists are so effective as "suppressing" your beliefs because your beliefs don't hold up to reason and so they naturally fall apart

Do you honestly believe "reason" is what drives human passion? Good luck suppressing the emergent concept of nationalism with "reason" bro.

>>2600490
>it represents a consensus
Consensus is a voluntary concept that the individual is free to reject at any time, it has no moral, philosophical, or intellectual weight on it's own. "Everybody is doing it" has never been a valid argument.

>>2600555
>You have done no such thing.
see
>>2599474

>. And it is patently false all definitions prove your claims given they result in contrary constructions. In fact the original disagreement is predicted on the differences between the definitions.

any proof? any sources? literally anyone besides you and that crazy head of yours to point to in making this grant claim about the history of nationalism? I assure you, the original disagreement was predicated on more than just nerds arguing semantics. It was a fundamentally ideological difference that fundamentally altered the construction and identity of states.

> You have been, and still are unable to give a reason for tasking your definition over mine on the basis of the definition itself.
and what is "your" definition exactly, because you have yet to actually share that with us. By all means, share "your" definition. Also, none of them are "my" definition, as I've said countless times before. I have no backed any in particular, all that I have read support my claims and you've only talked about some fantasy argument where you've actually presented points that have never happened. You said yourself that you were just some guy uninvolved in the thread that decided to post something off topic, when did all this happen exactly? You're contradicting yourself. You claim these definitions contract but you have done nothing to prove that claim.


>And I am not unqualified to discuss the merits of definitions, my BA is in math

Your discipline is math. Not history. Not political science. Not economics. Not politics. Math.

Just sit down and shut the fuck up. Like I'm the one deflecting, what a fucking joke.


>>2600569
the world is the way that it is because that's how all the forces fell into place in the context of their era. If your "emergent" concept was so effective you'd be able to actually argue with me, but you cant. reason obviously doesn't drive human passion, but that's just some strawman you attacked.

>>2600585
when it comes to things like definitions, consensus is necessary for the conversation to even take place. Otherwise how can you decipher what I'm saying to you at this very moment if there is not some sort of consensus of language? Consensus is the product of hard work and arguing. It does not plop onto the world but is constructed from chaos. Things come together, it is the nature of not only people but of the universe itself. Have your existential crisis elsewhere, I'm here to discuss the topic of the thread

>>2600599
>f your "emergent" concept was so effective you'd be able to actually argue with me
I don't have to "argue" with you, I can simply reject your premises out of hand.

>>2600616
All you've done is reject my premise. If you could actually make an argument, you would have told me what your definition is. Instead you deflected. Again.

>>2598215
Of course identity existed.

What people mean is that people did not identify with a political state defined by certain geographical boundaries (borders). People still identified with language, culture, and religion - the three things that make up a nation.

>>2600615
>when it comes to things like definitions, consensus is necessary for the conversation to even take place.
Wrong.
Conversations take place all the time without consensus, how would a consensus be reached in the first place otherwise?

>>2600599
>https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nation

And please notice the "or".

Anyway, your take down of this definition is subjective, as they are certainly closer culturally, linguistically, and genetically to each other than any one else. But that's irreverent, considering that's just ancient Greece. Fine, I concede, ancient Greece was not a nation.

>any proof? any sources?

The contrary nature is a priori, given they result in contrary constructions. Given that only one of a group of contrary things can be true at one time.

>>2600620
>All you've done is reject my premise.
So?
What makes you think your arguments are worth consideration in the first place?

>>2600599
Also, you seem to be confusing me with someone else in the thread. You are arguing with several people.

>>2600624
I can understand you because we've reached a consensus on what all of these words mean. If your argument is that consensus is meaningless, it defeats the purpose of having an argument.

>>2600629
You have no argument, otherwise you would be making it right now. I asked for your definition. Please "continue" your "argument"

>>2600630
and they're all idiots

>>2600626
>https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nation
>A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

Since you just admitted that greece doesn't fit the bill, what else are you trying to argue? Give another example then and I'll refute it all the same.
>The contrary nature is a priori, given they result in contrary constructions. Given that only one of a group of contrary things can be true at one time.
so no sources then. awesome

>>2600635
>I can understand you because we've reached a consensus on what all of these words mean.
No we haven't.
When exactly did we get together and homogenize dictionaries?

>>2600658
you just responded to me, no? So you understood my words, yes? So we have a consensus on these words? Yes?

Should I break it down more?
"I" what does "I" mean?
"can" hmm another thinker
"understand" really made me think
"you" what could it mean

you're a fucking retard

>>2600647

I literally only came to this thread to discuss why a nation does not need to be sovereign, that is my only stake in this. I think you are confusing several people together.

Anyway, synthetic statements do not need to be sourced. But here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition. It follows from the definition of contrariety.

I think it's a bit misleading the way it is often remarked, I'd say especially by critics of nationalism. The idea that nations didn't exist doesn't mean that people didn't identify with groups and were all about being part of a whole humanity or something, quite the opposite, this "identification" was much more localized than modern nations, the latter of which would really just coalesce in modern times, at least in general.

Nowadays I'm sure many even strong supporters of nationalism don't really identify much with their subregion or little city let alone their neighborhood. So while nationalism may seem like a form of belonging compared to globalism/cosmopolitanism it certainly wasn't always a widespread sentiment, especially for the common man.

>>2598342
Uh, they actually just did have that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapphane

>>2600665
>we understand and agree upon the meanings of certain words
>therefore we understand and agree upon the meanings of all words
really lubed my lobes

>>2600666
Sorry, analytic statements.

>>2600666
>a large body of people united
>people united
>united

To be united is to be subject to the same rule. To be subject to the same rule means there has to be something with power enough to maintain that rule, otherwise it would not rule. This necessitates sovereignty, because if something is not sovereign, it means there is another authority over it.

You're wrong. Anything else to say?

>>2600677
discussing meaningless semantics differences between definitions when NOT ONE of them refutes my argument is pointless. Go on, give me another and I refute it again just like I just fucking did in this post.

>>2600682
>NOT ONE of them refutes my argument
What exactly was your argument again?
Your autism caused it be lost in the shuffle at some point.

>>2598991
>>2599006
>I know what people of the past thought and felt
Yall don't know shit.

>>2600687
no definition you can point to fits with any examples given in this thread. Nations of old and nations after the revolutionary era are distinct entities, we name it a "revolutionary era" because it was fucking revolutionary.

>>2598215
>Why do people keep perpetuating the "National identity didn't exist before the 19th century" meme?
Because they link nationalism to the 19th century of nationhood rather than seeing it as the.. uh "national" gradation of a larger concept: tribalism.
Tribalism is likely older than AMHs, so the whole discussion basically hinges on your definition of nation.

Because this board is filled with Postmodernists and Cultural Marxist shills who want to end national sovereignty and install a totalitarian, socialist New World Order.

>>2600700
thanks for blankly stating the stupid rationale that has inspired the stupid posts in this thread

>>2600693
>Nations of old and nations after the revolutionary era are distinct entities
Please define "nations of old".
Please define "revolutionary era".

>>2600700
shit, 280 posts later and op finally gets the answer he's been fishing for

>>2600682
You conflating definitions of unity, and of rule.

>To be subject to the same rule means there has to be something with power enough to maintain that rule

But this thing does not need to be statehood of the group itself, or political power. Thus sovereignty does not follow.

Indeed this definition would mean that Empires don't exist, as their defining feature is many nations under one ruler. Impossible if we need sovereignty.

>>2600698
yeah, but being a white tribalist just sounds so much worse than a white nationalist

it's just goofy

File: maasai-herding-cattle_20070917_001.jpg (68KB, 800x536px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x536px

>>2598461
>Because people are stupid. As long as people had contact with other tribes and countries, peoples and religions, they've formed an identity to distinguish themselves from others.
>Every Identity is a national identity.
/stupid

An identity based on societies organized around clan affiliations are not nations. You can have many of them in a given nation. See Arabs.

An identity based on Fealty to some noble or another is not a nation. You could share that fealty with other nations in a given kingdom or empire. Your fucking king probably isnt the same nationality as you. See how people name their fucking countries *after the dynasty.* Check out *Saudi* Arabia. People in Imperial China didn't say "I am Chinese." They usually say "I am from x family, from y province/feudatory/subject tribe/subject state, and a man of *name of dynasty,* of the Empire."

There's a breathtaking number of identities you can base your society/subgroup on. I'm not saying National identities don't exist but not everyone latched on to Nation in earlier history. But the 19th century did make it the hot new thing.

>>2600724
yes but >>2600716

>>2600706
nations formed from the old way of unification
nations formed from the new way of unification

it's fucking simple. The turning point was the french/american revolutions. they set the precedent for all governments to follow.

>>2600709
the definition of empire is many peoples under one nation, not many nations under one nation. That's just something you made up.

>But this thing does not need to be statehood of the group itself, or political power.

It most certainly does if it wants to survive in an environment where anything less was destroyed. And yes, there were lesser organizations that were crushed by history, that's how the world works. The tribal system was crushed by agriculture, ancient systems crushed the systems before them, and so on and so forth. Strength has always won, and whatever form strength takes is the form that wins.

Please, if not a state then what could it be? What could possibly be considered a strong enough bind people together? You can't consider an ethnic group a "nation" unless power and fear holds them together. Other ways dont fucking work.

If you actually had a basis in history you'd intrinsically understand why things are the way they are, and it's not usually because of individual choices but because of forces hitting each other and forming the new order. When old ways of unity are no longer strong enough to be considered sovereign, then they no longer have any use being considered "nations" and no right to either.

You need power to have unity. You need sovereignty to extend power. If you're not the sovereign, someone else is, but there's always a sovereign.

>>2600741
The Oxford English Reference Dictionary disagrees. It's defining feature is many nations, one ruler.

>It most certainly does if it wants to survive in an environment where anything less was destroyed

Who said it wants to survive? Some might, but a nation might not even like itself. Go back to the definition.

Can a group be classed through genes, territory, or culture? And is it aware of these similarities? Then it fits the definition. Does not need to be, or even want to be a state or sovereign.

>>2600741
>the definition of empire is many peoples under one nation, not many nations under one nation. That's just something you made up.
An Empire is most definitely not a nation. It's a state.

>>2600709
ISIS made their own state. They fought for it and set up a sovereignty of power. They'll probably lose that power, but at the moment they have it because they fought for it. Strength is the only thing that can create a nation, anything else is just lying to yourself. Your not a nation unless your nation is an actor in world affairs.

>>2600741
>the definition of empire
>An empire is a multi-ethnic or multinational state with political and/or military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture.
Straight from the OED. Pls don't talk out of you arse.

File: Filipino Reaction.png (16KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 429x410px

>ITT: Idiots mixing up state & nation. State & nation identities.

>>2600768
>An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.

that's the oxford definition. nowhere in there does it say "many nations, one rule." I see states, I see countries, I dont see "nation".

>Can a group be classed through genes, territory, or culture?
yes and it is categorized in those terms, not political terms like "nation" that imply the strength to actually be a nation.

>>2600789

Weird, my OED has a different definition. Anyway, how do categorize the BE then? England and India aren't separate nations?

>>2600813
>>2600789

And adding to this: why would the have the concept of "home nations" in the UK otherwise?

>>2598215
Nigger do you really think that dozens of years of scholarship in support of this is just a "meme"?

People primarily affiliated with their religion up until the Reformation, and even after that nationalism wasn't popular until the late 19th century. A lot of nationalism was literally invented during this time- see kilts, German land worship, and basically every element of French nationalism. This isn't really debatable but I guess when you aren't familiar with any of the literature and you don't bother to actually learn anything outside the opinions spouted in your hugbox things like facts and scholarship dont matter.

Yes I'm fucking mad

>>2600832
>Nigger do you really think that dozens of years of scholarship in support of this is just a "meme"?

Well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

>>2600832
>Nigger do you really think that dozens of years of scholarship in support of this is just a "meme"?
Honestly the field is so politicized and paradigms shift so often within it that yeah, arguments from authority mean jack fucking shit in anything political or social sciences related. You can use them to make an argument, but not as an argument.

File: 1490468782970.jpg (26KB, 680x393px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 680x393px

>OP asks a question about "national identity"
>boat-loads of butt-hurt internationalist anti-fascists come in and pretend he asked about nation-states, and make their criteria to include a bunch of shit that not even the Nazis followed or had, to be considered a national identity or 'nation'
>these eristic sophists are so ass-mad at the mere thought that the concept of 'national identity' or state wasn't a artificial one
>they are so booty-blasted that they have to cover up history to go with a narrative that "no one believed in nationalism or racism before the 16th / 17th / 18th / 19th century" to discredit the proponents of them, and always jump around and make up different standards whenever someone brings up a instance when someone or people were, even though they would've falled under the same definition if they were around today

Pic-related, you guys talking about me.

>>2600917
>posts person from a region where nation-identities barely exist.
Nice shooting your own argument m8.

>>2600926
The fuck are you talking about.
The whole muslim world is rife with nationalistic strife.

>>2600945
>Religious unrest
>Nationalism
>Tribal disputes.
>Nationalism.
Only the Kurds are the nationalist party there.
Everywhere else is indicative of the failure of nationalism. Even funnier considering all of Arabdom is one big nation by the definition of nation.

>>2600962
>Religious unrest
>Tribal disputes
Oh shit nigga, it's almost like the strife between panarabists and egyptian nationalists hasn't been one of the most ardent issues in the country for decades.
And it's really no different in the whole middle east really.

>>2599072
It isn't a civil war because they are two separate states you retard.

I think people on both sides of the fence misinterpret this argument.

This doesn't necessarily mean that ancient people would not identify with a certain region or group. It just means that the concept of identifying within a large abstract mass called a nation did not yet exist.

>>2601094

What exactly is the difference between group identity and "identifying within a large abstract mass"?

>>2599325
nation without a state

nation without a state is very possible.

Real nationalism has never been tried.

>>2598342
Ya know most people today probably identify with their town or city first too

>>2598956
Yes they are, dipshit. You can't have a nation without a specific ethnic group or race to which it is meant for. Therefore, the nation is that ethnic group or race

>>2599864
>You're not a nation, Canada is your nation. You're a territory within a nation, that's it. You and Ireland can bitch all you want but until you set up an independent government you've both just parts of a greater national whole. A culture created by nationalism is different than a state that was formed by culture.
First off
>Canada
>Culture
>Canada is a nation
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

Secondly
>By your logic Poland during the 19th century somehow wasn't a nation and Poles weren't a nationality because Poland didn't exist at this time
For Poland to actually be able to be created after WW1, the Polish identity had to have existed prior to its creation. The Poles did not have a nation-state of their own, but they still felt as Poles. That is the essence of what OP was getting at, the identity, not necessarily the sovereignty

File: 1488399462401.png (7KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 420x420px

>>2600599
>Your discipline is math. Not history. Not political science. Not economics. Not politics. Math.
>You need to have a degree in history to argue about history on a Mongolian throat-singing forum
No wonder /his/ is shit, it's filled with pretentious cunts like yourself

>>2598215
Who the fuck thinks this?

I thought most people assumed it started around the time of the 100 Years War

>>2599456
>Clearly the identity of "Greek" existed during this time, and as such an Athenian and a Spartan, even though they might hate eachother, would both say they are Greek if asked
>Oh HUHHH HURRRRRR but dey didn have none dat SOH VER EYN TEE so they akshully didn have non dat dere identity at all HYUUK

neck urself

>>2599325
Is Canada retarded then (oh wait..) for saying they are a country of many nations??

>>2599699
Think about this, dipshit. If nation necessarily implies sovereignty, then what use is there in the term nation-state? Surely the latter term is redundant if the former already implies a state