Zardnaar
Deity
England formed around 9th century. Morocco is a older country.
So yes they became nation states and gave remained independent and ire or less in the same territory.
Colonialism, Exploitation and Independence
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
England formed around 9th century. Morocco is a older country.
So yes they became nation states and gave remained independent and ire or less in the same territory.
banzay13
Emperor
Is England's nation was same in 11-12th century? Ethical, cultural?
For ordinary ppl there was no nation. Only pride, famaly, Village. Well, nearist city and countryside around. For nobiles - its was even more comlex question, than just simple Nation
"1920's Britain and Portugal weren't nation states" is certainly one of the claims of all time
Zardnaar
Deity
Its changed sure but there's a direct linguistic, cultural and political continuation going back to 9th century England.
Unlike say Turkey or Israel various other countries. They're still bastions states.
Basically if you control your borders and can back it up diplomatically or militarily and other states are willing to engage you're a nation state.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Who precisely are you quoting ?
I said "country".
The place was here, inhabited by the people speaking the language we're speaking today.
danjuno
Cole Phelps, Badge 1247
The UK and Portugal still exist as more or less the same nation-state today.
You? What the hell else did you mean when you said "Those empires were not nation states" immediately after amadeus said the UK and Portugal were the same nation-states as their empires?
That definition would count lots of city-states and the quasi-independent subordinate fiefdoms and vassals of empires as nation states, which would be so broad a definition of a nation-state as to be useless. "Nation-states" as we think of them are pretty modern concepts, not nearly as old as the idea of a "state" generally. Were the Papal States a nation-state, or the Republics of Genoa and Venice, or the majority of the constituents of the Holy Roman Empire? Were Classical Sparta and Athens nation-states?
EnglishEdward
Deity
To my mind the concept of a nation state is implicitly tied in with the concept of a nation where people share a common language.
As the British empire included much of southern Asia where the majority of the population lived and English was not the
native language there, it is not meaningful to regard the British empire as a larger version of a current British nation state.
The British empire is gone.
There are many geographical fragments of the British Empire.
Australia, Barbados, England, India, Nigeria etc are all fragments.
The concept that one fragment is somehow specially guilty and its current inhabitants owes other fragments reparations is absurd.
As the British empire included much of southern Asia where the majority of the population lived and English was not the
native language there, it is not meaningful to regard the British empire as a larger version of a current British nation state.
The British empire is gone.
There are many geographical fragments of the British Empire.
Australia, Barbados, England, India, Nigeria etc are all fragments.
The concept that one fragment is somehow specially guilty and its current inhabitants owes other fragments reparations is absurd.
The British Empire formed when "that one fragment" conquered all the others, stole a bunch of their stuff (which in many cases, they still have), imposed racist systems of wealth extraction and/or settler colonialism on them, and just generally did some not nice things to the other fragments to build its own wealth and power, and which has committed plenty of heinous acts against some of the other fragments within living memory. The idea that Australia, Barbados, England, India, and Nigeria are all equivalent remnants of the British Empire is a phenomenally ridiculous claim to make, whether you think they owe reparations for their past actions or not, there's indisputably one modern nation-state that's most directly tied to the administration of the pre-WWII British Empire.
amadeus
rad thibodeaux-xs
Putting it another, hopefully clarifying way:
The Roman Empire is gone.
Rome as a polity is gone.
The British Empire is gone.
Britain as a polity continues.
The Roman Empire is gone.
Rome as a polity is gone.
The British Empire is gone.
Britain as a polity continues.
EnglishEdward
Deity
So what.
Rome still exists as a capital city and it is the capital of a nation state called Italy and Italy as a polity continues.
London still exists and it is capital of a nation state called England and the United Kingdom. There is no polity called Britain.
Rome still exists as a capital city and it is the capital of a nation state called Italy and Italy as a polity continues.
London still exists and it is capital of a nation state called England and the United Kingdom. There is no polity called Britain.
amadeus
rad thibodeaux-xs
Joij21
🔥It's Joever!🔥
I'm of the opinion that nation states don't actually exist, it's a mumbo jumbo intellectual concept that's used by both reactionary and radical intelligencia to serve their concurrent political praxis respectively. With reactionaries using the concept to create a system of sameness and conformity for easier streamlined governance, which then is acknowledged by radicals who then respond through creation of juxtaposition to said paradigm (with their antithesis anticolonialism/social internationalism) to prove they are a relevant political alternative by virtue of simply being different.
If you think I'm wrong, then please explain why both sides consider the U.S.A. to be a nation state when it's comprised of multiple races, ethnicities, and yes even languages. At the very least it's the supposed textbook definition of an empire not a nation state. Though I suppose if you think of it, it's multiple groups aren't really in it from conquest but rather voluntarily via immigration, so more like a gathering, congregation, confederation, or perhaps some kind of voluntary hegemony (I mean you have to still pay your taxes or else).
If you think I'm wrong, then please explain why both sides consider the U.S.A. to be a nation state when it's comprised of multiple races, ethnicities, and yes even languages. At the very least it's the supposed textbook definition of an empire not a nation state. Though I suppose if you think of it, it's multiple groups aren't really in it from conquest but rather voluntarily via immigration, so more like a gathering, congregation, confederation, or perhaps some kind of voluntary hegemony (I mean you have to still pay your taxes or else).
Zardnaar
Deity
Thts not relevant to what I posted
The MP identifies as Maori and she’s saying he’s not. Isn’t that what you were talking about?
Zardnaar
Deity
The person identifying as Maori is Maori if they have ancestry or adopted by iwi. Doesn't matter if they pass for white or have 1% ancestry.
Can matter for others or that person could be full of crap if they dont have ancestry or have been accepted into Maori culture by Maori.
Ones full of crap or ones an *******.
I had some trouble parsing that second sentence but anyway, I think she’s saying that it’s a bit rich for him to act like it’s so hard for him as a non-white non-male person in parliament when most people view him as a white man. But the controversy actually didn’t seem to have much if anything to do with race this time.
Similar threads
