The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXII
- Thread starter aimeeandbeatles
- Start date
- Status
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
All Nation-States are states.
The United Kingdom would be a State and not a Nation.
The English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc., could all count as separate Nations but not separate states.
If Scotland broke away from the UK and became independent, it would be a Nation State.
The Republic of Ireland would probably count as a Nation State even though the Nation of Ireland might also include Northern Ireland, which is part of a different state.
What defines a nation is always rather nebulous though. Shared language and kinship are major factors, but culture and religion may count too. Thus, some might consider the Catholic Irish and the Protestant Irish to be separate nations.
The United Kingdom would be a State and not a Nation.
The English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc., could all count as separate Nations but not separate states.
If Scotland broke away from the UK and became independent, it would be a Nation State.
The Republic of Ireland would probably count as a Nation State even though the Nation of Ireland might also include Northern Ireland, which is part of a different state.
What defines a nation is always rather nebulous though. Shared language and kinship are major factors, but culture and religion may count too. Thus, some might consider the Catholic Irish and the Protestant Irish to be separate nations.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
I thought the state was/could-also-be the "organisation"/"body" that manages the society (or at least tries to)
Well, I guess I learned a new word (I'm not english). When I try to translate that with google translator it's called "drinking water" (as in water you can drink).
Well, I guess I learned a new word (I'm not english). When I try to translate that with google translator it's called "drinking water" (as in water you can drink).
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
What about Orkney and the Shetlands? Wouldn't they imply Scotland was a State too?
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
Can't the executives and such be pert of what's called the state?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Yeah, potable does generally refer to drinking water - rather than coke, beer, whiskey etc.
It comes to English (but is rarely used, since most tap water is potable anyway) from the French potable (which is often used, since a lot of tap water hasn't, in the past, been drinkable), from the Latin potabilis.
It comes to English (but is rarely used, since most tap water is potable anyway) from the French potable (which is often used, since a lot of tap water hasn't, in the past, been drinkable), from the Latin potabilis.
Hobs is correct. The April 2013 deadline is for the 2012 tax year (Jan-Dec 2012). Income earned in calendar year 2013 will be filed in 2014.
I'd be prone to say that it's ultimately the nation state that defines nation, and the latter is more or less fiction.
The term "nation" seems to be used as a rhetoric device to say that some group share some destiny, goals and obligations. So you can say to others that they have to do this and that because it's the nation's interest. One example of this is how people here in Finland talk about conscription army: it's necessary so that the Finns can determine on their own businesses - at the same time individual Finns can't determine on their own businesses because of the conscription.
Except that nations exist frequently without reference to states?
I mean, obviously the nation is an invented construct. A rhetorical device. Whatever. But so is the state.
A powerful enough metaphor grows its own truth. Millions of Taiping Chinese died for something that was definitely not the Empire of the Great Qing.
Ok. How about if a nation is something defined by a political entity that claims it's right to be a state?
That still won't suffice, there has to be some sort of popularity criterion too. And then the right to be a state must somehow be grounded on that claimed nationality.
However, I can't accept nation as anything more than rhetorical device, since it's usually understood in the way that individuals of the same nation feel they belong together, whether or not some individual feels it or not. So, ultimately it is "you must do like we want you to do".
Perhaps there should be two different concepts (perhaps there is, but I don't know the other): nationality that is purely description and the nationality that is thought to cause obligations.
In theory yes, but in popular speech nationalities so often implicitly contain the obligations that it's almost impossible to discuss without it. Even if you did succeed making that point, people still slip using that understanding of the word as an argument.
It's like some racial slurs. Some people claim that they have no derogatory content, but the words are so burdened they can't be thought to be neutral any more even if they once were. (Funnily enough, most people who claim that they are just neutral words use them exactly as slurs).
It's like some racial slurs. Some people claim that they have no derogatory content, but the words are so burdened they can't be thought to be neutral any more even if they once were. (Funnily enough, most people who claim that they are just neutral words use them exactly as slurs).
I don't have your personal experience of what Finnish people think about conscription, but even if it is true - and I think you're exaggerating, either the extent to which it's pervasive or the extent to which it's intrinsically connected to the idea of Finnish identity - it doesn't hold true across the rest of the world. Most of the rest of us just associate Finland with alcohol and Nokia and bragging about education.
I'm not speaking about only the conscription or Finnish identity, but how nationalities are used in argumentation. And I might be exaggerating, I have spent way too much time arguing with people about conscription for me having an even view on the subject. (Note also that I didn't mean that conscription itself would be a part of being Finn, but that the nationality is used as an argument for the conscription. I suspect most Finns don't even know how unpopular conscription is elsewhere in the West).
The American equivalent of that would possibly be "If you don't support Iraq war, you're unamerican and have to leave the country" (uttered in 2003): If you're American, you have to think the way we are thinking.
Most people of course (or hopefully) don't subscribe to that kind of extreme rhetorics, but those who do are vocal enough to influence how the words are used.
However, perhaps you're right. Maybe it is just easier to make the distinction of the identity and the obligations by pointing it out. At least it's much more possible to me than making up new eords that people'd pick up.
The American equivalent of that would possibly be "If you don't support Iraq war, you're unamerican and have to leave the country" (uttered in 2003): If you're American, you have to think the way we are thinking.
Most people of course (or hopefully) don't subscribe to that kind of extreme rhetorics, but those who do are vocal enough to influence how the words are used.
However, perhaps you're right. Maybe it is just easier to make the distinction of the identity and the obligations by pointing it out. At least it's much more possible to me than making up new eords that people'd pick up.
Optical
The Fall of the Eleventh
What's up with the paranoid Blogspot security system?
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
On the subject of nationality, I feel that language is pretty important. The people you share you're mother tounge with are the only people you can say something to how you want it to be understood, andactually have the other person understand.
Unless any of you think that it's perfectly possible to express yourself with confidence in another language (I don't really), or that misunderstandings can happen frequently anyway.
I don't know how sound the orwellian idea that laguage shapes thoughts is, but I guess I can mention that as well.
Unless any of you think that it's perfectly possible to express yourself with confidence in another language (I don't really), or that misunderstandings can happen frequently anyway.
I don't know how sound the orwellian idea that laguage shapes thoughts is, but I guess I can mention that as well.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Why aren't half-tracks used anymore?
Because they really are not that good of a compromise for modern use. The tires available in WWII may not have been up to the weight they wanted in a vehicle for that use. But the tires available now are. An 8 wheel drive vehicle can have pretty much all the traction and weigh carrying advantages of a halftrack without the speed and maintenance penalty the track gives you.
- Status
Similar threads
