Is there an Australian nation?

[Tee Kay]

Six, actually.

 

[Dachs]

The Tuscarora don't count 'cause they were parvenus :3

 

[Camikaze]

So there is no Basque, Scottish or Iroqouis nation?

On the topic: Australia is a nation in the political/shared identity sense. There's no particular cultural or ethnic content to the Australian nation. I'd say it's far more defined by residence or citizenship within the state. So it's a pretty open door. It has to be, since 1 in 4 of us were born overseas.

Is the shared identity strong enough or coherent enough or consistent enough to say that Australia is a 'nation'? It's evident that there is some sort of shared identity, but I'm doubtful that that identity contitutes a 'nation'. Presumably for it to be so, there'd have to be shared characteristics that distinguish this 'nation'. But all I can really think of are stereotypes, not actual shared characteristics.

And what about the Aboriginal population or recent migrant populations? Are they part of this nation, and if not, how is it coterminous with the state (with 'coterminous' not being used purely in a geographic sense, and indicating inclusion of the whole)?

While the USA and Australia are prime examples of constructed states that have a somewhat "shallow" shared culture

So 'shallow' it's taken over the world.

 

[Arwon]

I think you're insisting on an overly strong and narrow conception of what a "nation" is.

 

[Dreadnought]

So there is no Basque, Scottish or Iroqouis nation?

On the topic: Australia is a nation in the political/shared identity sense. There's no particular cultural or ethnic content to the Australian nation. I'd say it's far more defined by residence or citizenship within the state. So it's a pretty open door. It has to be, since 1 in 4 of us were born overseas.

They are not nations, for they do not have independence.

 

[Camikaze]

They are not nations, for they do not have independence.

Yes, but why do nations have to have independence, a political system or legitimate governance? Arwon's point was that a Basque nation, for instance, definitely does exist, so your definition is clearly lacking.

 

[Dreadnought]

Yes, but why do nations have to have independence, a political system or legitimate governance? Arwon's point was that a Basque nation, for instance, definitely does exist, so your definition is clearly lacking.

Saying a nation "definitely exists" without any clear reasoning or modus ponens for your belief is clearly lacking. I'd argue there is no Basque "nation"; instead, they possess a significant cultural presence, but for any nation to exist they must have a discernible governing body in order to function as a nation, and independence; for if they are not independent, they are merely a subculture of a different nation.

 

[Dachs]

They are not nations, for they do not have independence.

Then why is there a delineation between "nation" and "nation-state"?

 

[Camikaze]

@Dreadnought- Your definition appears to be, 'a nation is a state'. That without a coterminous state, a group cannot be a nation. Does this work in reverse, too? If there is no nation, there isn't a state? Are you actually differentiating between the two in your definition at all? What of states with multiple distinct cultural groups? Is it actually a state, and are the constituent groups actually nations?

 

[Tahuti]

As a European, I believe there is a Australian identity forged by a common history and common political association. Although compared to for example the Armenian and Jewish identities - which are very ethnically defined and have lasted for multiple generations outside their respective heimats, Armenia and Israel - the Australian identity is fragile and can collapse should common political association falter.

The Belgian identity is an example that a national identity originating from common political association could plausibly fail.
More and more Flemish people refuse to consider themselves Belgian. All this is ofcourse much less likely in Australia which because of its linguistic homogenity won't see a crisis similiar to Belgium for example.

 

[azzaman333]

If asked what nationality I was, I'd always answer Australian. So yes.

 

[Camikaze]

I think you're insisting on an overly strong and narrow conception of what a "nation" is.

I don't think I'm insisting on it being that narrow. It's just that I find it hard to grasp Australia as being a nation when there are no readily apparent definable characteristics of the nation. I would've thought that's a bit of a prerequisite for the definition. What are some of the definable characteristics of the Australian nation?

 

[Tani Coyote]

If we can be considered a nation, then surely Australia can too, even if it, as an independent state, hasn't existed as long.

I like Cutlass' explanation but add this: we all like to be unique so claiming to be "American" to eachother is meaningless and doesn't give uniqueness to us. Saying we're German, Irish, Arab, Jewish, Chinese, etc. is about the same as saying we're Texan, New Yorker, Californian, etc...

But, we present a unified face(mostly) to the outside world. It's silly to use American since that's the same as the other person, so we use something different, either based on ancestry or geography.

 

[Masada]

As a European, I believe there is a Australian identity forged by a common history and common political association.

I’m not sure why you think these things significant, nor for that matter am I sure what it is they even are in the Australian context. And even were I sure on both counts, I would not think someone less of an Australian for not holding to them. If anything, I would be loath to admit that one need be anything to become an Australian. We just don't work that way. I suppose the chief difference here is that the Australian identity isn’t exclusivist. We don’t ask that one make sacrifices to the altar of Australian nationalism in order to become an Australian. I know Europeans might find this hard to fathom but as a country, as a nation, as people with a population that is heterogeneous in the extreme it is an asset for us to apply no test, to make no demands, lest we all get found wanting. And I like it that way, I like it a lot. It allows me to accept a Sino-Thai like TK as a brother in Australian arms. For that matter, it allows me, a Maori, to think of myself as an Australian. A strange thing in itself.

the Australian identity is fragile and can collapse should common political association falter

This is not true in the least. It might change. But it won't 'collapse' and it is most assuredly not fragile. Australia has added 7.5 million immigrants to our population since 1945. For reference, our current population is only 21 million. Most European countries have choked on far smaller numbers and far smaller percentages, elected bigots and become petulant children afraid of teh blacks and mooslims. So I suppose we're the more robust identity?

All this is ofcourse much less likely in Australia which because of its linguistic homogenity won't see a crisis similiar to Belgium for example.

Lingustics is not Australia's great strength.

I don't think I'm insisting on it being that narrow. It's just that I find it hard to grasp Australia as being a nation when there are no readily apparent definable characteristics of the nation. I would've thought that's a bit of a prerequisite for the definition. What are some of the definable characteristics of the Australian nation?

Bhinneka Tunggal Ika? This isn't all that hard to grasp honestly. You seem to be stuck on the notion that Australia has no rules governing its membership. But perhaps our rule is that we have no rules?

If we can be considered a nation, then surely Australia can too, even if it, as an independent state, hasn't existed as long.

I'm not sure how that would even be relevant. Australia is older than more than a few European states.

 

[Quackers]

Australian national identity is based on defeating England at Empire sports. If you can handle that then your an Oz

 

[Tahuti]

I’m not sure why you think these things significant, nor for that matter am I sure what it is they even are in the Australian context. And even were I sure on both counts, I would not think someone less of an Australian for not holding to them. If anything, I would be loath to admit that one need be anything to become an Australian. We just don't work that way. I suppose the chief difference here is that the Australian identity isn’t exclusivist. We don’t ask that one make sacrifices to the altar of Australian nationalism in order to become an Australian. I know Europeans might find this hard to fathom but as a country, as a nation, as people with a population that is heterogeneous in the extreme it is an asset for us to apply no test, to make no demands, lest we all get found wanting. And I like it that way, I like it a lot. It allows me to accept a Sino-Thai like TK as a brother in Australian arms. For that matter, it allows me, a Maori, to think of myself as an Australian. A strange thing in itself.

That's pretty much what the Australian identity is all about, as those who consider themselves Australian consider being Australian as important if not more important than his/her ethnic identity. If most people of Australia considered their ethnicity more important than being Australian, I'd imagine the Australian continent would made up of English provinces.

This is not true in the least. It might change. But it won't 'collapse' and it is most assuredly not fragile. Australia has added 7.5 million immigrants to our population since 1945. For reference, our current population is only 21 million. Most European countries have choked on far smaller numbers and far smaller percentages, elected bigots and become petulant children afraid of teh blacks and mooslims. So I suppose we're the more robust identity?

I didn't say Australian identity is fragile in absolute terms, but consider this: Australian identity is almost singehandedly originating from citizenship to a country called Australia, and you pretty much cease to be Australian as soon as you give that citizenship.
After all, all ethnicities are nations, but not all nations are ethnicities, and the Australian nation isn't an ethnicity. You can cease to be an Australian, but you cannot cease to be ethnically Irish (though you can be ethnically Irish and consider yourself foremostly an Australian, because Australian identity wouldn't be able to exist otherwise).

Lingustics is not Australia's great strength.

Again, you miss my point. Last I heard nearly every Australian citizen is able to speak English.

 

[warpus]

Nationhood is an artificial, very arbitrary concept, a result of selective grouping, conscious or not, of elements of culture, history, languages, ethnicity, geography, and binding them under the banner of a nation, and just as selective identification of differences between nations.

Being both Polish (an almost homogeneous nation in terms of ethnic, linguistic, and cultural makeup) and Canadian (a hodge-podge of peoples of varying ethnic & cultural makeups) I really gotta agree with the above. Nationhood is a very artificial construct.

 

[bhsup]

Are there Australian citizens in the legal sense? Then there is an Australian nation. It is really as simple as that. Any old world definitions just need to go away, period. It's the 21st century and nationhood is linked to sovereignty/legal status, period.

 

[Babbler]

So there is no Basque, Scottish or Iroqouis nation?

On the topic: Australia is a nation in the political/shared identity sense. There's no particular cultural or ethnic content to the Australian nation. I'd say it's far more defined by residence or citizenship within the state. So it's a pretty open door. It has to be, since 1 in 4 of us were born overseas.

Really? It seems from here that there is a 'core' Australian culture, and that's derived from the British Isles, modified by its interactions with the Island continent and such.

 

[Dachs]

But perhaps our rule is that we have no rules?

That's not Aussie-unique, though.